With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (In re Dempster), 182 B.R. 790, 802 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1995)). A trust or fiduciary relationship need not be established in order to find a debt excepted from discharge by an act of embezzlement. Green v. Pawlinski (In re Pawlinski), 170 B.R. 380, 390 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1994). A creditor’s debt may be found nondischargeable under the fraud or defalcation prong of section 523(a)(4) if he is able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) an express trust or fiduciary relationship existed between him and the debtor; and (2) the debtor committed fraud or defalcation in the course of that relationship. In re Woldman, 92 F.3d 546, 547 (7th Cir.1996); CFC Wireforms, Inc. v. Monroe (In re Monroe), 304 B.R. 349, 358 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2004); see also Grogan, 498 U.S. at 291, 111 S.Ct. 654 (<HOLDING>). An express trust requires an explicit

A: holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability exceptions under section 523a is preponderance of the evidence
B: holding that a creditor objecting to the dischargeability of a debt under  523a must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence
C: holding all exceptions to discharge under  523a must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence
D: holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard
A.