Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an attorney knowingly misappropriated his or her client’s funds. In re Barlow, 140 N.J. 191, 196, 657 A.2d 1197 (1995). Respondent is correct that we have held that shoddy recordkeeping alone does not suffice for a finding of knowing misappropriation. In re Konopka, 126 N.J. 225, 228, 596 A.2d 733 (1991); In re Librizzi, 117 N.J. 481, 491-92, 569 A.2d 257 (1990); and In re Gallo, 117 N.J. 365, 373, 568 A.2d 522 (1989). In In re Fleischer, 102 N.J. 440, 447, 508 A.2d 1115 (1986), however, we held that although poor accounting does not establish a knowing misappropriation, poor accounting is not a Wilson defense if evidence indicates knowing misappropriation. See also In re Skevin, 104 N.J. 476, 486, 517 A.2d 852 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1028, 107 S.Ct. 1954, 95 L.Ed.2d 526 (1987)  (citations omitted); In re Irizarry, 141 N.J.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement
B. recognizing that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge under the lanham act
C. holding that a knowing misappropriation may be established by evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent knew the invasion was a likely result of his conduct and that  willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge
D. holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard
E. holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.