Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rests with the Commission to show that the funds in the possession of [the relief defendant] are ill-gotten.” FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC, 674 F.Supp.2d 373, 392 (D.Conn.2009) (citations omitted). “The ill-gotten gains must be linked to the unlawful practices of the liable defendants.” Bronson Partners, LLC, 674 F.Supp.2d at 392. Where “it would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace specific ... [fraudulently obtained funds], a freeze order need not be limited ... to funds that can be directly traced to defendant’s illegal activity [because] ... the defendant should not benefit from the fact that he commingled his illegal profits with other assets.” Byers, 2009 WL 33434, at *3 (citations omitted); see also SEC v. Aragon Capital Mgmt., LLC, 672 F.Supp.2d 421, 443 (S.D.N.Y.2009) . If disgorgement of “fraudulently obtained
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant compensated himself by spending investors funds for his own expenses
B. holding that tracing proceeds of illegal funds is unnecessary and where tainted funds have been commingled with potentially legitimate funds the sec is entitled to obtain disgorgement from the entire pool of funds
C. holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable
D. holding that even if the sec succeeded in showing defendants violated the exchange act or sec rules the sec is not entitled to a permanent injunction or an officerdirector bar
E. holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.