Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
want to do anything that would distort the financials of General Reinsurance.”). Regardless of whether the final structure of the deal took shape in mid-November 2000, this evidence provides an adequate basis for a rational jury to conclude that the conspiracy to artificially inflate AIG’s loss reserves and deceive the company’s investors started with Greenberg’s call to Ferguson on October 31, 2000. Lastly, Ferguson argues that the government presented insufficient evidence that a secret side agreement ensured that the LPT was a no-risk deal, and that Ferguson knew of it and agreed to it as part of the overall deal. This argument, however, is also unavailing, in light of the evidence at trial supporting both inferences. See United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir.2004) . The government presented sufficient evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges
B. holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy
C. holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman
D. holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction
E. holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.