 The appeals judges also discounted arguments from the defence regarding whether the defendants were all aware of the illegality of the transactions, making reference to an "ostrich argument" ( based on the urban legend that ostriches sensing danger stick their heads in the sand ), in that choosing not to investigate the suspicious nature of the payments was equivalent to accepting their illegality.
<fluency>  The appeals judges also discounted arguments from the defence regarding whether the defendants were all aware of the illegality of the transactions, making reference to an "ostrich argument" ( based on the urban legend that ostriches sensing danger stick their heads in the sand ), in that choosing not to investigate the suspicious nature of the payments was equivalent to accepting their illegality.
 The appeals judges also discounted arguments from the defence regarding whether the defendants were all aware of the illegality of the transactions, making reference to an "ostrich argument" , based on the urban legend that ostriches sensing danger stick their heads in the sand ), in that choosing not to investigate the suspicious nature of the payments was equivalent to accepting their illegality.