The methods that are typically used to launder money using insurance companies are:
The policy holder overpays the policy and moves the funds out of the policy despite paying early withdrawal penalties. This method involves placing large amounts of illicit funds into an insurance policy, usually a life insurance or an annuity, and then requesting a refund or a surrender of the policy. The policy holder may incur some fees or penalties for the early withdrawal, but they will receive a check or a wire transfer from the insurance company that appears to be a legitimate source of income. This method allows the launderer to layer and integrate the funds into the financial system.
The policy holder uses an offshore company to pay the insurance installments. This method involves setting up a shell company or a trust in a jurisdiction with low or no tax and weak or no anti-money laundering regulations. The launderer then uses the offshore entity to purchase an insurance policy or a bond from a reputable insurance company. The offshore entity pays the premiums or the installments using the illicit funds, and the launderer can claim thebenefits or the returns from the policy or the bond as clean money. This method allows the launderer to hide the true ownership and origin of the funds.
The other options are not typical methods of money laundering using insurance companies, because:
The policy holder enters a sibling as a beneficiary of the insurance policy rather than themselves. This method does not involve any movement or disguise of the illicit funds, and it does not generate any income or return for the launderer. The beneficiary of the policy will only receive the payout upon the death of the policy holder, and the insurance company will conduct due diligence on the beneficiary before releasing the funds.
The policy holder purchases a bond and redeems it at a discount prior to its full term. This method does not make sense for a money launderer, because it involves losing money rather than gaining money. A bond is a fixed-income instrument that pays a regular interest and a principal amount at maturity. If the bond is redeemed before its full term, the bond holder will receive less than the face value of the bond, and will also forfeit the future interest payments. This method does not help the launderer to conceal or legitimize the source of the funds.
The policy holder is strongly interested in how many costs are incurred when taking out an insurance policy.
This method does not indicate any money laundering activity, but rather a prudent and rational behavior of a potential customer. The policy holder may want to compare different insurance products and providers, and to understand the fees, charges, commissions, and taxes associated with the policy. This method does not involve any placement, layering, or integration of the illicit funds.
ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 1.2: Methods of Money Laundering, Subsection
1.2.5: Insurance Products, pp. 19-20
AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, Section: Common Money Laundering Methods in Insurance, Paragraphs 1-3

According to the guidance issued by FinCEN and the Federal banking agencies, when a financial institution receives a request for SAR supporting documentation from FinCEN or an appropriate law enforcement or supervisory agency, it must first verify that the requestor is, in fact, a representative of such an agency. This is to ensure the confidentiality and security of the SAR information and to prevent unauthorized disclosures. A financial institution should have procedures for such verification in its BSA/AML compliance program, which may include, for example, independent employment verification with the requestor's field office or face-to-face review of the requestor's credentials.
References:
1: This web page explains the BSA requirement that financial institutions provide SAR supporting documentation in response to requests by FinCEN and appropriate law enforcement or supervisory agencies, and the need to verify the requestor's identity.
2: This document provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding SARs and other AML considerations, including the question of how to handle "keep open" requests from law enforcement.

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

When implementing a risk-based approach related to casinos, the risks related to the customer as an individual are mainly based on the customer's profile, behaviour, source of funds, and geographic location. Among the options given, B and D are the most relevant factors that could indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.
Casual customers are those who do not have a regular or established relationship with the casino, and who may visit the casino only once or occasionally. They may not provide sufficient or reliable identification information, or may use false or stolen identities. They may also engage in suspicious transactions, such as large cash purchases of chips, minimal or no gaming activity, or frequent transfers of chips between customers. Casual customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they are harder to verify, monitor, and trace by the casino operators.
Customer from a high-risk country is a customer who resides in, or has links to, a country that is subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures, or that is identified by credible sources as having significant levels of corruption, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. Such customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they may be involved in, or connected to, criminal or terrorist activities, or may be using funds that are derived from or intended for such activities.
= The main reference for this question is the document titled "FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Casinos" published by the FATF in October 2008. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the risk-based approach and the customer risks for casinos on the Gambling Commission website and the Exam Answer website.