According to the CAMS Study Guide, the most commonly used risk criteria for assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks are country risk, customer risk, and product and service risk. These criteria are based on the FATF Recommendations and the Basel Committee's guidance on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism.
Country risk refers to the level of exposure to potential money laundering and terrorist financing activities in a specific jurisdiction, based on factors such as the quality of its AML/CFT regime, its level of corruption, its political and economic stability, its involvement in illicit activities, and its cooperation with international bodies.
Customer risk refers to the level of exposure to potential money laundering and terrorist financing activities associated with a specific customer or customer segment, based on factors such as the nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of funds, the type and volume of transactions, the customer's profile and behavior, and the customer's geographic location.
Product and service risk refers to the level of exposure to potential money laundering and terrorist financing activities associated with a specific product or service offered by a financial institution, based on factors such as the complexity, transparency, anonymity, and accessibility of the product or service, the delivery channels and payment methods used, and the degree of oversight and monitoring applied.
Reputation risk is not a risk criterion for assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks, but rather a potential consequence of failing to manage those risks effectively. Reputation risk refers to the potential damage to the public trust and confidence in a financial institution due to its involvement or association with money laundering and terrorist financing activities, whether directly or indirectly.
CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments, pp. 41-461
FATF Recommendations, Recommendation 1: Assessing Risks and Applying a Risk-Based Approach2 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 2017, pp. 9-143

The Egmont Group is a united body of 174 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that uniquely support national and international efforts to counter terrorist financing and share financial information per global anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards. Its primary objective is to enhance international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and financing of terrorism.
The Egmont Group facilitates the exchange of expertise and financial intelligence among FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offenses. While it does not conduct financial investigationsitself, it plays a crucial role in improving stakeholders' understanding of ML/TF risks and informing policy considerations related to AML/CFT implementation and reforms12.
References: 1: About - Egmont Group 2: Decoding Global AML: The Role Of The Egmont Group - Financial Crime Academy

A financial institution (FI) should exit a relationship when the suspicious conduct of the account holder or the FI's stated policies and procedures for closing an account warrant such action. A FI has the right and responsibility to terminate a customer relationship that poses an unacceptable level of risk to the FI or violates its AML/CFT program. A FI should have clear and consistent criteria for exiting a relationship, such as the number and severity of SARs filed, the nature and extent of due diligence conducted, the availability and effectiveness of mitigating controls, and the alignment of the customer profile with the FI's risk appetite. A FI should also document the rationale and process for exiting a relationship, communicate the decision to the customer and relevant stakeholders, and monitor the account until closure.
The reputational risk to the FI posed by closing the account or the request from law enforcement to close the account are not valid reasons for exiting a relationship by themselves. A FI should consider the potential reputational impact of closing an account, but it should not outweigh the legal and regulatory obligations of the FI to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. A FI should also cooperate with law enforcement requests, but it should not automatically close an account based on such requests, as they may interfere with ongoing investigations or intelligence gathering. A FI should exercise its own judgment and discretion in deciding whether to exit a relationship, based on its own policies and procedures and the facts and circumstances of each case.
Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy
De-risking your SARs: Building SAR relationship exit strategies into your AML/CFT program Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

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.
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

The USA PATRIOT Act is a comprehensive legislation that was enacted in 2001 to enhance the powers and tools of the US authorities to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats to the national security and the integrity of the financial system. The USA PATRIOT Act contains several provisions that affect the relationship between US banks and foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the US.
One of these provisions is Section 319, which allows the US authorities to seize the funds of a foreign bank held with a US bank, if the foreign bank refuses to comply with a subpoena or a request for records related to the correspondent account. This provision is intended to prevent foreign banks from using their correspondent accounts in the US to facilitate transactions involving tainted funds, such as proceeds of crime, funds intended to support terrorism, or funds subject to sanctions or asset freezing orders. Section 319 also requires US banks to maintain records of the owners and agents of foreign banks that have correspondent accounts with them, and to terminate such accounts if requested by the US authorities.
Therefore, if a foreign bank maintains a correspondent account in the US, and the US authorities find out that the account has been used to facilitate a transaction involving tainted funds, the US authorities can seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act.
CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 10
USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319, page 55-57
The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, Section III, page 9-10
[The USA PATRI
Reference: https://www.fincen.gov/fact-sheet-section-312-usa-patriot-act-final-regulation-and-notice- proposed-rulemaking