Large and frequent credit balances on a credit card resulting in request for refunds is an indicator of suspicious activity because it may suggest that the cardholder is using the credit card to launder money or to conceal the source of funds. This is also known as credit card refund fraud or credit card laundering. The cardholder may make purchases with the credit card using illicit funds, then request refunds to another account or in cash, thus transferring the funds to a legitimate or less traceable channel. This activity may also be used to evade currency reporting requirements or to avoid detection by law enforcement or financial institutions.
ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 381 Suspicious Activity Reporting Indicators and Examples, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Indicator 14:
Excess Purchases or Transactions2
Credit Card Laundering, Money Laundering Bulletin, Issue 245, October 2019

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations address the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons (such as companies, foundations, associations, etc.) and legal arrangements (such as trusts, fiducies, anstalts, etc.) in Recommendations 24 and 25. These recommendations aim to prevent the misuse of legal persons and arrangements for money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit purposes, by requiring countries to ensure that accurate and up-to-date information on the natural persons who ultimately own or control them (the beneficial owners) is available to the competent authorities in a timely manner.
CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 112
CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 1, Task 1.2, Skill 1.2.2
Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership, FATF, October 2014
Recommendation 24: Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons, FATF
[Recommendation 25: Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements], FATF Reference:https://www.fatf-gafi.org/documents/news/transparency-and-beneficial-ownership.html

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.

Non-compliance with AML regulatory obligations can have severe consequences for financial institutions.
Among these, the most severe consequence is the loss of license. When a financial institution fails to meet AML requirements, regulators may revoke its license to operate. Losing the license effectively shuts down the institution's ability to conduct business, impacting its existence and operations significantly12.
References:
1. Unit21 AML: 8 AML Penalties, Fines, and Sanctions + Examples You Should Avoid
2. Financial Crime Academy: Ensuring Compliance: The Power Of AML Regulatory Reporting