If the judge directed that legal advice was to be disregarded by the jury in this case i.e. that the accused were responsible for their own decisions, then how can he logically take State advice into account when sentencing? Surely such highly paid executives were responsible for taking the decisions they did, legally and morally, regardless of legal or State advice. After all, ignorance is not a defence under the law. Particularly company law, which directors are supposed to know?