Havens for money laundering and terrorist financing are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of anonymity, secrecy, and protection to criminals who seek to conceal or move their illicit funds. These havens typically have the following three attributes12:
Limited types of institutions and persons covered by money laundering laws and regulations. This means that only a narrow range of financial activities or entities are subject to anti-money laundering (AML) and combatting the financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations, such as customer due diligence, record-keeping, reporting, and supervision. For example, some havens may exclude lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or non-bank financial institutions from AML/CFT requirements.
Little enforcement of the laws, weak penalties or provisions that make it difficult to confiscate or freeze assets related to money laundering. This means that the authorities in these havens lack the political will, resources, or capacity to effectively implement and enforce the AML/CFT laws and regulations. They may also impose low sanctions or fines for non-compliance, or create legal barriers or obstacles for the confiscation or freezing of assets that are the proceeds of, or used in, or intended or allocated for use in, money laundering, terrorist financing, or other crimes.
Absence of an effective FIU. This means that these havens do not have a central agency that is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other crimes. An effective FIU is essential for facilitating domestic and international cooperation and information exchange, as well as for supporting investigations and prosecutions of money laundering and terrorist financing cases.
Reference:
1: The IMF and the Fight Against Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, 1 2: IX Special Recommendations, 2

A money laundering investigation that involves multiple countries can be challenging due to different legal systems, languages, cultures, and levels of cooperation. Two factors that can assist such an investigation are:
Law enforcement and other authorities should have access to financial information that is pertinent to the investigation. This can help them trace the flow of illicit funds, identify the perpetrators and beneficiaries, and gather evidence for prosecution. Financial information can be obtained from various sources, such as financial institutions, financial intelligence units, regulators, and international organizations.
Law enforcement and other authorities should be allowed to establish and utilize joint investigative teams with law enforcement in other countries. This can enhance coordination, communication, and information sharing among the authorities involved, and allow them to pool resources, expertise, and evidence. Joint investigative teams can also facilitate mutual legal assistance and extradition requests.
Reference:
Financial Action Task Force (FATF), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, The FATF Recommendations, February 2012, updated June 2019, Recommendation 40, pp. 120-123 FATF, Best Practices on Establishing and Operating a Joint Investigative Team, June 2020, pp. 5-6 FATF, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Investigations, June 2018, pp. 11-12

According to the BSA/AML Manual1, once a financial institution files a SAR, it should maintain a copy of the SAR and the original or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years from the date of filing the SAR. The supporting documentation should be identified and maintained by the financial institution as such, and be deemed to have been filed with the SAR. The financial institution should make all supporting documentation available to FinCEN or any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, or any federal regulatory authority that examines the financial institution for compliance with the BSA, upon request. Therefore, the best action to take regarding a particular account once suspicious activity is reported by the institution is to secure all supporting documentation, as it may be needed for further investigation or examination.
Reference:
BSA/AML Manual1
Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2
Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

Bringing $15,000 worth of chips into the casino is a red flag because it could indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the currency transaction reporting (CTR) requirement for cash transactions over $10,0001. Requesting a wire transfer to an unrelated third party is another red flag because it could indicate that the customer is trying to conceal the source or destination of the funds, or transfer them to a high-risk jurisdiction2.
Reference:
1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.1: Regulatory Requirements, Slide 8 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.2: Money Laundering Methods and Red Flags, Slide 11

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, the risk of a correspondent bank customer depends on various factors, such as the nature of the customer's business, the customer's location, the products and services offered, the customer's ownership and management structure, and the customer's customer base1. Among these factors, two that should increase the risk and require additional due diligence are:
The customer is located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country and the bank's head of information security is a politically exposed person (PEP). A PEP is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, such as a senior government official, a judicial or military officer, a senior executive of a state-owned corporation, or a political party leader2. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds3. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that has a PEP in a key position should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as verifying the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, and the PEP's reputation and integrity4.
The customer is located in a non-FATF member country and services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade. A non-FATF member country is a country that is not part of the FATF, an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system5. Non-FATF member countries may have weaker or less consistent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and may pose a higher risk of financial crime or sanctions evasion6. Moreover, a correspondent bank customer that services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade may be exposed to trade-based money laundering, which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions7. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that operates in a non-FATF member country and deals with international trade should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as obtaining information on the nature and volume of the trade transactions, the origin and destination of the goods, and the identity and reputation of the trade counterparties8.
The other options are not correct because they do not necessarily increase the risk of a correspondent bank customer or require additional due diligence. A customer that is located in a FATF member country and provides services primarily to a local individual customer may pose a lower risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, as the customer's activities are subject to the FATF standards and recommendations, and the customer's customer base is less likely to involve complex or cross-border transactions. A customer that is located in a FATF member country and provides services to other correspondent banks in neighboring countries may also pose a lower risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, as the customer's activities are subject to the FATF standards and recommendations, and the customer's customer base is composed of regulated financial institutions that are subject to their own anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations.
nswer: BD
According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, the risk of a correspondent bank customer depends on various factors, such as the nature of the customer's business, the customer's location, the products and services offered, the customer's ownership and management structure, and the customer's customer base1. Among these factors, two that should increase the risk and require additional due diligence are:
The customer is located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country and the bank's head of information security is a politically exposed person (PEP). A PEP is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, such as a senior government official, a judicial or military officer, a senior executive of a state-owned corporation, or a political party leader2. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds3. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that has a PEP in a key position should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as verifying the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, and the PEP's reputation and integrity4.
The customer is located in a non-FATF member country and services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade. A non-FATF member country is a country that is not part of the FATF, an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system5. Non-FATF member countries may have weaker or less consistent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and may pose a higher risk of financial crime or sanctions evasion6. Moreover, a correspondent bank customer that services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade may be exposed to trade-based money laundering, which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions7. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that operates in a non-FATF member country and deals with international trade should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as obtaining information on the nature and volume of the trade transactions, the origin and destination of the goods, and the identity and reputation of the trade counterparties8.