With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were questionable because they consisted of items that would not be purchased by or served at school system events. Items flagged as questionable included: a mop, beef tor-telloni, marinara sauce, hash browns, chicken, chewing gum, blocks of cheese, oatmeal, and hot sauce. Defendant also purchased coffee, creamer, sugar, and cups using the school system’s credit card, products which school administrators testified defendant would not need to buy because they were provided through an outside vendor. Further, evidence showed that defendant had forged her supervisors’ signatures and/or changed budget code information on credit card authorization forms and reimbursement forms at least 29 times, and submitted forms for reimbursement with unauthorized signatures totaling $6,6 5 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, defendant’s argument is

A: holding that a bare conclusory allegation of an intent to discriminate is insufficient specific nonconclusory facts from which such an intent may reasonably be inferred is required
B: holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances
C: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
D: holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary
D.