When an FI is being investigated for possible money laundering, it is important that it cooperates with the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in a professional and transparent manner. This means that the FI should take the following steps:
* Maintain centralized control over all requests and responses to ensure completeness and timely responses. This will help the FI to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of information, as well as to track the status and progress of the requests and responses. It will also facilitate the communication and coordination between the FI and the LEAs, and demonstrate the FI's willingness to cooperate12.
* Review subpoenas and other information requests by senior management and an investigations group or counsel. This will help the FI to assess the scope, relevance, and legality of the requests, as well as to identify any potential risks, conflicts, or sensitivities. It will also enable the FI to prepare and provide the requested information in an accurate and timely manner, and to seek clarification or negotiation if necessary13.
The other options are not advisable, as they may indicate a lack of cooperation, obstruct the investigation, or damage the FI's reputation. For example:
* Making employees, including corporate officers, unavailable for interviews and refusing documents upon receipt of a subpoena may be considered as non-compliance, evasion, or contempt of court, and may result in legal sanctions or penalties4.
* Addressing the document destruction policy to ensure the relevant documents are destroyed may be seen as tampering with evidence, destroying records, or concealing information, and may constitute a criminal offence or a breach of regulatory obligations5.
* Not answering inquiries from the media directly, but rather replying, "No comment" may create a negative impression, fuel speculation, or invite criticism, and may harm the FI's image, credibility, or trustworthiness.
:
Cooperation between FIUs, Law Enforcement Authorities, and Prosecutors
AML and Financial crimes investigation
Mechanisms for interaction of law enforcement agencies in the field of counteracting and combating money laundering Recommendation 30: Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities Money laundering and illicit finance

the account officer should avoid disclosing any details of the investigation to the customer, as this could compromise the integrity of the law enforcement inquiry, or even constitute tipping off, which is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions12. The account officer should only inform the customer that a legal request has been made, and that the bank is obliged to comply with it, without revealing the nature or scope of the request3. The account officer should also document the communication with the customer, and report it to the appropriate internal authority, such as the compliance officer or the legal department4.
:
1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 151-152. 2: Tipping Off: What It Is and How to Avoid It, ACAMS Today, March 2019. 3: How to Handle Law Enforcement Requests, ACAMS Webinar, June 2018. 4: Best Practices for Responding to Law Enforcement Inquiries, ACAMS White Paper, October
2017.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are characteristics of D. only involving two countries, E.
cooperatively combating crime between countries, and F. being useful for gathering evidence and intelligence in a foreign country. MLATs are public and binding under international law (A), can be used for obtaining banking records from treaty partners (B), and provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence .

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution's anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution's risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution's products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.
The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:
* The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors.
While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution's anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.
* The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution's anti- money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution's internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program's adequacy and effectiveness1.
* The program should be sent to the institution's government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution's government regulator may request or review the institution's anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.
:
Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), the financial institution (Fl) should take the following actions:
A: Review the client's activity, determine if suspicious activity exists, and report accordingly. The Fl should assess the risk of the situation and determine if there is any suspicious activity that needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities. This would involve conducting a review of the client's account activity and transactions to determine if there are any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing.
D: Inform local LEA and regulator of the request for awareness. The Fl should inform the local law enforcement agency and regulator of the request from the foreign jurisdiction to raise awareness of the situation and determine if any further actions need to be taken.