With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the fraud on nearly a dozen occasions). The allegations of an enterprise also are sufficiently distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity. A discrete set of facts is not necessary, since “proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce.” Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524; see also Ouwinga v. Benistar 419 Plan Servs., Inc., 694 F.3d 783, 794 (6th Cir.2012) (stating that “the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evidence establishing an enterprise ‘may in particular cases coalesce’ ”) (quoting Boyle, 556 U.S. at 947, 129 S.Ct. 2237). The Supreme Court has held that evidence of the pattern of activity may itself support the inference of an association-in-fact enterprise. Boyle, 556 U.S. at 952, 129 S.Ct. 2237 (<HOLDING>). Here, the complaint describes the defendants’

A: recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity
B: recognizing that it is difficult to understand how a corporation can acquire or maintain an interest in itself through a pattern of racketeering activity and that 1962b may require that the person and enterprise be distinct entities
C: holding that to state a  1962a claim plaintiff must allege that the defendants received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and invested it in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of a rico enterprise
D: holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise
D.