TheFATF Grey Listconsists of countries withAML/CFT deficienciesthat havecommitted to reforms.
Option C (Correct):Grey-listed jurisdictionsare underincreased monitoringand mustaddress identified deficiencieswithin a set timeframe.
Option A (Incorrect):Yellow noticesare used byINTERPOL, not FATF.
Option B (Incorrect):Red noticesrefer toINTERPOL arrest warrants, not FATF monitoring lists.
Option D (Incorrect):FATF doesnot maintain a "white list"of compliant jurisdictions.
Reference:FATF Public Statements, FATF Mutual Evaluation Reports, FATF Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring (Grey List).

The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. The group started as a meeting of banks in 1999 to address anti- money laundering (AML) in private banking, which carries an increased degree of risk from a money laundering perspective. In the course of discussions, they articulated principles that reflected uniformly high standards for this client segment. These principles became the first guidance published by the group under the name Wolfsberg Principles.
The Wolfsberg Group - Institute on Governance
Wolfsberg Group - Wikipedia
The Group first came together in 2000 at the Wolfsberg castle in Switzerland, accompanied by representatives of Transparency International, to draft anti-money laundering guidelines for private banking

An enterprise-wide compliance culture is a centralized, coordinated approach to ethics and compliance program design and assessment that cuts across multiple business units within an organization1. One key aspect of promoting such a culture is that the relevant information should be shared throughout the organization, so that all employees are aware of the compliance risks, policies, procedures, and expectations, and can act accordingly2. Sharing information also facilitates collaboration, communication, and feedback among different functions and levels of the organization, and helps identify and address any gaps or issues in the compliance program3. By contrast, the other options are not conducive to an enterprise-wide compliance culture, as they either create silos, conflicts, or inefficiencies in the compliance function.
1: Enterprise Compliance Risk Management Services | Deloitte US
2: Enterprise Risk Management and Risk Culture - McKinsey & Company
3: FRB: Speech, Bies-Enterprise-wide Compliance Programs-February 4, 2004 Reference: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/e7e10e94-3cd8-4f4c-b6f8-1e14ea9eff80
/45464_IFC_AML_Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=mKKNshy (51)

the correspondent bank has engaged in a high-risk activity that could expose the primary bank to sanctions violations, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic and tradesanctions against targeted foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States1. Opening branches in a country on the OFAC list indicates that the correspondent bank is not complying with the sanctions requirements, and could be facilitating transactions for sanctioned entities or individuals. This would pose a serious risk for the primary bank, which is responsible for conducting due diligence and monitoring of its correspondent banking relationships2. Therefore, the primary bank should terminate the relationship with the correspondent bank to avoid any potential liability or penalties.
The other options are not as compelling as A, because they do not necessarily indicate that the correspondent bank is violating any laws or regulations, or that the primary bank is exposed to significant risks. Option B could be a cause for concern, but it does not imply that the correspondent bank is involved in any wrongdoing, or that the compliance officer has any influence over the correspondent banking activities.
Option C could suggest that the correspondent bank is engaging in unusual or suspicious transactions, but it does not mean that the primary bank should terminate the relationship immediately, as it could also be a result of changes in the correspondent bank's business profile, customer base, or market conditions. Option D is a normal and expected part of the correspondent banking relationship, as the primary bank has the right and obligation to request transactional details from the correspondent bank to verify the legitimacy and source of funds, and to identify any red flags or anomalies3.
1: OFAC website
2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 178
3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 4
4: ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 93
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions-programs-and-information
https://www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition
https://www.exam-labs.com/video-training/acams-cams
https://vceplus.io/exam-cams/

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is a form of cooperation between different countries for the purpose of collecting and exchanging information and evidence in criminal matters. MLA is usually governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties that establish the procedures and requirements for requesting and providing assistance. The first valid step in the MLA process is to send a formal request from the central authority of the requesting country to the central authority of the requested country. The central authority is the designated entity that is responsible for making, receiving, and facilitating the execution of MLA requests. The request should contain the necessary information and documents to enable the requested country to assess and execute the request, such as the nature and purpose of the request, the legal basis, the description of the assistance sought, the identity of the persons involved, the applicable legal provisions, and the deadline for the response.
The request may also be accompanied by a commission letter of request, which is a judicial document that authorizes a foreign authority to perform certain acts on behalf of the requesting authority, such as taking evidence or statements from witnesses or suspects.
Guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26,
2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.45,
2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61, 2.62, 2.63, 2.64,
2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82, 2.83,
2.84, 2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.
Reference: https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Publications
/Mutual_Legal_Assistance_Ebook_E.pdf