According to the FATF Recommendation 12, financial institutions should take reasonable measures to determine whether the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and/or, where required, the beneficial owner of the beneficiary are politically exposed persons. This should occur at the latest at the time of the payout1. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the abuse of life insurance products for money laundering or terrorist financing by PEPs or their associates. Therefore, the best way to mitigate the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP is to perform due diligence on the beneficiary, such as verifying their identity, relationship with the PEP, and source of funds2.
The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the FATF standards, or do not adequately address the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP. Determining the source of wealth and source of funds is a measure that should be applied to the PEP as the customer, not the beneficiary, as partof the enhanced due diligence process2. Declining the request if the beneficiary is a foreign PEP may not be feasible or proportional, as not all foreign PEPs are involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, and some may have legitimate reasons to add a beneficiary to their life insurance policy.
Declining the request to add a beneficiary due to increased risk may also not be feasible or proportional, as it may violate the contractual rights of the PEP as the customer, and may not be necessary if the due diligence on the beneficiary does not reveal any red flags or suspicions.
https://complyadvantage.com/insights/peps-life-insurance/
https://www.cfatf-gafic.org/index.php/documents/fatf-40r/378-fatf-recommendation-12-politically-exposed- persons

A financial institution should examine the country or location where the customer is from or does business, the type and size of the business the customer runs, and the legal structure of the customer's business, because these factors can indicate the level ofmoney laundering risk associated with the customer. For example, some countries or locations may have weak anti-money laundering laws or high levels of corruption, some types or sizes of businesses may be more prone to generating or concealing illicit funds, and some legal structures may be more complex or opaque than others, making it harder to identify the beneficial owners or controllers of the customer.
ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD), Pages 42-44

Trade finance transactions involve the financing of the movement of goods and services across borders. Trade finance products include letters of credit, guarantees, documentary collections, open account, and supply chain finance. Trade finance transactions are exposed to various risks, such as credit risk, operational risk, fraud risk, and money laundering risk. Money laundering risk refers to the possibility that trade finance transactions are used to conceal the origin, ownership, or destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes, sanctions, or exchange controls. Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a form of money laundering that involves the manipulation of trade transactions, such as mispricing, misinvoicing, over- or under-shipping, or falsifying documents, to transfer value or obscure the true nature of the funds12.
An analyst reviewing trade finance transactions should be alert to any red flags or indicators of potential TBML, such as significant discrepancies between the value or quantity of the goods and the invoice, payment, or contract; unusual or complex shipment routes or methods; involvement of high-risk jurisdictions, entities, or commodities; or lack of transparency or documentation of the trade transaction12. If the analyst notices an increase in price of 25% over 12 months for commodities with the same specification and quantity, this could be a sign of mispricing, which is a common technique of TBML. Mispricing involves inflating or deflating the price of the goods to transfer value or evade taxes or duties. For example, an exporter may overprice the goods to move funds out of a country with exchange controls, or an importer may underprice the goods to reduce the customs duty payable12.
However, an increase in price of 25% over 12 months for commodities with the same specification and quantity does not necessarily indicate TBML, as there could be other legitimate factors that may have affected the transaction cost, such as market fluctuations, supply and demand, quality, transportation, insurance, or other fees. Therefore, the analyst should not jump to the conclusion that TBML is occurring, but rather conduct a thorough investigation to verify the validity and rationale of the price change. The analyst should produce an investigation report that considers the client activity and factors that may have legitimately affected the transaction cost, such as:
The nature and purpose of the client's business and trade activities
The client's profile, risk rating, and transaction history
The source and destination of the funds and the goods
The market price and trends of the commodities involved
The contractual terms and conditions of the trade transaction
The supporting documents, such as invoices, bills of lading, certificates of origin, inspection reports, etc.
The due diligence and verification procedures performed by the bank or the third parties The compliance with the relevant laws, regulations, and standards of the jurisdictions involved The investigation report should document the findings, analysis, and conclusions of the analyst, and provide evidence and references to support the assessment. The investigation report should also include any recommendations or actions to be taken by the bank or the authorities, such as:
Requesting additional information or clarification from the client or the counterparties Conducting enhanced due diligence or monitoring of the client or the transaction Escalating the case to the senior management or the compliance department Reporting the case to the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) or the relevant regulator Filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) or a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) if there are reasonable grounds to suspect TBML or other criminal activity Therefore, the best action for the analyst to take is to produce an investigation report that considers the client activity and factors that may have legitimately affected the transaction cost, as this would allow the analyst to determine whether the price increase is justified or indicative of TBML, and to take appropriate measures accordingly.
Trade Finance and Trade-Based Money Laundering
Trade-Based Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, PEPs are individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state-owned corporations, or important political party officials1. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering and corruption due to their position and influence2. Therefore, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures when dealing with PEPs as customers3. This includes:
Conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the businessrelationship to detect and report any suspicious transactions or activities4. This may involve more frequent reviews, higher-level approvals, or increased documentation of the transactions and the rationale behind them.
Taking adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the business relationship or occasional transaction. This may involve verifying the origin, legitimacy, and purpose of the funds, as well as the economic activities and assets of the PEP.
The other two options are incorrect because:
Expedite due diligence when a PEP is pre-approved by a member of senior management is not a recommended course of action, as it may compromise the quality and integrity of the due diligence process.
Pre-approval by senior management does not exempt the financial institution from conducting thorough and timely due diligence on the PEP and the business relationship.
Obtain appropriate senior management approval for establishing a business relationship with a PEP from a high risk country is a necessary but not sufficient course of action, as it does not address the ongoing monitoring and source of funds aspects of the PEP risk management. Senior management approval is required for establishing or continuing a business relationship with a PEP, regardless of the country of origin or residence of the PEP.
1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 83 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 84 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 85 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p.
87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88