According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36, one of the methods that financial institutions can use to identify suspicious or unusual activity is to monitor transactions for red flags or indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing. Some of the common red flags are:
Transactions that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds
Transactions that involve high-risk countries or jurisdictions, especially those with weak or inadequate anti-money laundering regulations, or those known to be sources or destinations of illicit funds
Transactions that involve the use of complex or unusual financial instruments or structures, such as multiple accounts, intermediaries, or offshore entities, that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose
Transactions that involve the use of large amounts of cash, checks, or monetary instruments, especially if they are structured or aggregated to avoid reporting or recordkeeping requirements
Transactions that involve the use of third parties or nominees, such as relatives, associates, or shell companies, to conceal the identity, ownership, or control of the funds or assets
Option B is a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves sending large number of high dollar international wires to different countries, which could indicate that the customer is involved in layering or integration stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are moved across borders and disguised as legitimate transfers. This transaction type also raises the risk of exposure to sanctions, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities, depending on the destination and purpose of the wires.
Option D is also a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves depositing a lot of checks drawn on banks in foreign countries, which could indicate that the customer is involved in placement or layering stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system or converted into other forms of value. This transaction type also raises the risk of exposure to fraud, counterfeit, or forgery, depending on the origin and authenticity of the checks.
Option A is not a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves making regular cash deposits of a few hundred dollars every few days, which could be consistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds, especially if the customer is an ice cream vendor who operates in cash. This transaction type does not raise any red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing, unless there is evidence that the cash deposits are structured or aggregated to avoid reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Option C is also not a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves writing multiple checks for a few hundred dollars to the same dozen payees every two weeks, which could be consistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds, especially if the payees are suppliers, employees, or contractors of the customer. This transaction type does not raise any red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing, unless there is evidence that the checks are used to facilitate illicit activities, such as bribery, kickbacks, or tax evasion.
ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36
Red Flags And Atypical Customer Behavior: Anti-Money Laundering Awareness
4 Red Flags of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing
