Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The evidence at trial established that Defendant: (1) was informed of the delivery to his property and suggested that it be done at night, (2) was also informed when the truck arrived, and (3)was informed the next day when the drivers left his lot. Defendant claims that the only evidence of affirmative conduct on this occasion was his suggestion that the unloading take place at night. This evidence, stand ing alone, Defendant argues, is insufficient to support his aiding and abetting conviction. Defendant also argues that his previous act of giving the key to his property cannot be considered as evidence here because such only aided a general scheme of possession of marijuana, not the specific offense on October 4, 1998. See United States v. Lombardi, 138 F.3d 559, 561 (5th Cir.1998). We conclude, however, that Defendant’s assent
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known
B. holding that the government must show only that a defendant had knowledge of the reporting requirements and acted to avoid them
C. holding that under a similar statute the government need only show that the defendant had the intent to carry on illegal activity and that the crime occurred in conjunction with interstate travel
D. holding that broker willfully aided and abetted manipulative wash and match trades scheme when he knew or had reason to know that such trading was economically irrational
E. holding that the government must show that defendant aided and abetted the specific crime not just the overall scheme
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.