Defendant did not directly challenge the first element of a valid judicial order. However, defendant does contend that the order was ambiguous which is rejected as frivolous. The order is clear on its face that it was not limited solely to assets in the jurisdiction when the order was signed. Therefore, defendant's contention that the order is ambiguous is rejected. Defendant attempts to circumvent the results of its unlawful conduct by arguing the transfer was made in good faith.
Defendant contends that they received advice that the transfer was permitted under the court order.
While ignorance of law is never considered an excuse, the Court might take the advice defense into consideration if the erroneous advice had been provided by its attorneys whom they had retained in this action. This Court refuses to accept as an excuse for defendants failure to follow an order they had in its own possession based upon the alleged advice of a non-lawyer who is totally unrelated to defendant. Notably absent from defendant's opposition papers is any explanation as to why defendant failed to seek the advice of its own lawyers as opposed to the advice of a bank official. The Court finds defendant's argument, which is at best wilful blindness, insufficient to shield the defendant from the consequences of its own actions. Thus, even if defendant's dubious story is true, its reliance is deemed unreasonable.