The correct answer is C because it is the best example of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the ultimate fact in dispute. Instead, it establishes surrounding facts from which a judge or jury may reasonably infer the conclusion. Here, proof that the cashier deposited $900 into a personal bank account the day after $900 was stolen does not directly show the cashier taking the money, but it strongly suggests involvement in the theft. That is precisely how circumstantial evidence works in fraud and theft cases.

Option A is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence, because an eyewitness claims to have actually seen the cashier remove money from the register. Option B is merely demonstrative or illustrative evidence showing store layout; by itself, it does not tend to prove that the cashier committed the theft. Option D also does not prove the act of theft; it only explains a workplace rule or standard. In fraud examinations, circumstantial evidence is often very important because many fraudulent acts occur in secret, requiring investigators to prove wrongdoing through patterns, financial links, timing, and conduct rather than direct observation alone. Therefore, C is the strongest circumstantial-evidence choice.