Ref This transaction should result in a SAR/STR filing because it indicates possible structuring, which is a form of money laundering that involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits to avoid detection or reporting requirements. Structuring is often done to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes, regulations, or sanctions. A small business owner who deposits checks just below the $10,000 USD threshold on a daily basis without providing a legitimate purpose raises a red flag for suspicious activity and should be reported to the relevant Financial Intelligence Unit.
Reference:
Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) / Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)
What Is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? Triggers and Filing
How to decide if SAR filing is needed
erence: https://aml-cft.net/library/suspicious-transaction-report-str-suspicious-activity-report-sar/

Structuring is a technique used in the placement stage of money laundering, in which the launderer deposits or withdraws cash in amounts below the reporting threshold to avoid detection or suspicion. Structuring is also known as smurfing, because it involves using multiple individuals or locations to carry out the transactions. Structuring is illegal in many jurisdictions and is a red flag for money laundering12.
Option A is not an example of structuring, but of using an alternative remittance system, which is a method of transferring money outside the formal financial sector. Hawala is a type of alternative remittance system that relies on a network of brokers who settle the transactions through trust and honor. Hawala can be used for legitimate purposes, but also poses a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing13.
Option B is not an example of structuring, but of a large cash transaction, which is a common indicator of money laundering. Large cash transactions may involve the proceeds of crime or the attempt to evade taxes or currency controls. Financial institutions are required to report large cash transactions above a certain threshold to the relevant authorities14.
Option D is not an example of structuring, but of a wire transfer, which is a method of moving funds electronically from one account to another. Wire transfers can be used for legitimate purposes, but also pose a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing, especially if they involve high-risk jurisdictions, shell companies, or complex chains of transactions1 .

On-line banking offers a significant money laundering risk to a financial institution because:
The nature of on-line banking can make it difficult to establish who is controlling the account. On-line banking allows customers to access their accounts remotely, without face-to-face contact with the financial institution. This can pose challenges for verifying the identity and legitimacy of the account holder, especially if the account is opened on-line or through a third-party intermediary. On-line banking can also facilitate the use of anonymous or fictitious identities, or the use of proxies or nominees to hide the true beneficial owner of the account.
The ease of access through the internet enables cross border movement of funds. On-line banking allows customers to transfer funds quickly and easily across different jurisdictions, without physical movement of cash or other instruments. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as funds can be moved to or from high-risk countries or regions, or through multiple accounts or financial institutions, to obscure the origin, destination, or purpose of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to access or use alternative payment systems or virtual currencies, which may have lower regulatory oversight or transparency standards than traditional banking systems.
The speed of electronic transaction enables execution of multiple complex transactions within short time frame. On-line banking allows customers to conduct transactions in real time, with minimal or no human intervention or verification. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as customers can execute multiple transactions in a short period of time, or use complex transaction structures or patterns, to avoid detection or reporting thresholds, or to conceal the source, nature, or ownership of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to use automated or algorithmic trading systems, which may generate large volumes of transactions that are difficult to monitor or analyze.
Reference:
CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pages 139-140
CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.1, Skill 2.1.1
Online Banking and Money Laundering, ACAMS Today, September 2012

A financial institution located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country should address the following issues in its anti-money laundering program when dealing with customers located in countries/jurisdictions that are not members of FATF:
The requirement to identify the beneficial owners of accounts: Beneficial owners are the natural persons who ultimately own or control a customer or a legal entity. Identifying the beneficial owners of accounts is a key component of customer due diligence (CDD) and helps the financial institution to assess the risk profile of the customer, prevent the misuse of legal entities for money laundering or terrorist financing, and comply with the FATF Recommendations12.
The requirement for customer identification for the opening of new accounts: Customer identification is the process of verifying the identity of a customer using reliable and independent sources of information or documents. Customer identification is another essential element of CDD and helps the financial institution to establish a business relationship with the customer, prevent identity fraud, and comply with the FATF Recommendations13.
The financial institution's obligation to report suspicious transactions: Suspicious transactions are transactions that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose, or are inconsistent with the customer's known profile or business activities, or indicate involvement in money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting suspicious transactions to the competent authorities is a core obligation of the financial institution under the FATF Recommendations14 and helps to detect and deter illicit activities and support law enforcement investigations.
The obligation to freeze funds involved in suspicious transactions is not an issue that should be addressed in the anti-money laundering program, as it is not a requirement under the FATF Recommendations. The FATF Recommendations require the financial institution to freeze funds or other assets of designated persons and entities that are subject to targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or other threats to the international financial system1 . However, the financial institution is not obliged to freeze funds involved in suspicious transactions, unless it receives a specific order from the competent authorities or the courts.
Reference:
The FATF Recommendations, as amended November 2023
Interpretive Note to Recommendation 10 (Customer Due Diligence), paragraphs 5(b) and 6 Recommendation 10 (Customer Due Diligence), paragraph 1 Recommendation 20 (Reporting of Suspicious Transactions) Recommendation 6 (Targeted Financial Sanctions Related to Terrorism and Terrorist Financing), Recommendation 7 (Targeted Financial Sanctions Related to Proliferation), and Recommendation 8 (Non-Profit Organisations)

The FATF 40 Recommendations outline global AML/CFT standards, including risk-based compliance and beneficial ownership transparency.
Option B (Correct): FATF requires nations to implement financial sanctions in coordination with the UN Security Council.
Option C (Correct): FATF emphasizes a risk-based approach (RBA) to prevent ML/TF.
Option E (Correct): FATF mandates transparency in beneficial ownership to prevent shell company misuse.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
Option A (Incorrect): FATF does not require institutions to avoid high-risk customers but to apply appropriate risk-based controls.
Option D (Incorrect): Governments do not need identical crime investigation frameworks but should ensure effective cooperation.
Best Practices for FATF Compliance:
Apply risk-based due diligence on high-risk customers.
Enhance beneficial ownership transparency measures.
Implement targeted financial sanctions in coordination with global authorities.
Reference:
FATF Recommendation 1 (Risk-Based Approach to AML)
FATF Recommendation 10 (Beneficial Ownership Transparency)
FATF Recommendation 6 (Sanctions & UN Coordination)