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)

Law enforcement should obtain documentation from an institution when suspicious activity was identified by either requesting copies of the relevant documents from the accountable institution or acquiring a search warrant to obtain the documents. These are the legal and proper ways to access the supporting documentation that the institution is required to maintain for five years after filing a suspicious activity report (SAR). The institution must provide the documentation upon request by FinCEN or an appropriate law enforcement or supervisory agency, and should verify the identity and authority of the requestor. Law enforcement can also obtain a search warrant from a court if they have probable cause to believe that the documents contain evidence of a crime.
Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 1.
Obtaining Documentation from an Institution: Law Enforcement Procedures Reference: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/12/03/2010-29869/financial-crimes-enforcement- network-confidentiality-of-suspicious-activity-reports

Casinos and gambling institutions are highly vulnerable to money laundering because they allow the conversion of cash into chips, checks, or electronic credits, which can later be redeemed as "clean" funds.
Option A (Correct): A privately held company funding multiple patrons' betting accounts is highly suspicious and may indicate:
Structuring/smurfing, where multiple individuals are used to move illicit funds.
Third-party money laundering, where the real source of funds is obscured.
Trade-based money laundering, if linked to non-gaming businesses.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
Option B (Incorrect): Placing multiple bets on the same event is not inherently suspicious unless linked to fraudulent betting patterns.
Option C (Incorrect): Large chip purchases in cash may require reporting, but they do not necessarily indicate money laundering.
Option D (Incorrect): Transferring winnings to another operator may be unusual, but not automatically suspicious unless the amount is large and unjustified.
Common Money Laundering Techniques in Casinos:
Chip Walking - Buying chips with illicit funds and cashing them out later as "clean" funds.
Casino Account Transfers - Using multiple accounts or third-party accounts to move funds.
High-Value Gambling with No Loss Intent - Betting on both sides of an event to ensure clean withdrawal of funds.
Best Practices for Casino AML Compliance:
Monitor suspicious large transactions and third-party funding activities.
Perform enhanced due diligence (EDD) on high-risk patrons.
File Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for unusual gambling activity.
Reference:
FATF Report on Money Laundering in Casinos
6th EU AML Directive (6AMLD) on Gaming & Gambling AML Risks
FinCEN Guidance on Casino AML Compliance

A fundraising organization is a type of non-profit organization that may be vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as they often operate in high-risk areas, deal with large amounts of cash, and have complex and opaque structures. Therefore, a fundraising organization warrants enhanced due diligence, which is a higher level of customer verification and monitoring that goes beyond the standard customer due diligence measures. Enhanced due diligence may include obtaining additional information on the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, the beneficiaries, and the governance of the organization.
ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2:
Customer Due Diligence, p. 33-34
Anti-money laundering - a guide to customer due diligence
Customer due diligence | The Law Society

Using cash to buy multiple cashier's checks over a period of time is considered suspicious activity of money laundering. This method is commonly known as structuring, where individuals or entities use cash to buy multiple monetary instruments such as cashier's checks in small amounts, to avoid reporting requirements.
This behavior could be an attempt to evade transaction monitoring and reporting requirements by a financial institution. Additionally, the fact that the account also receives multiple electronic transfers for the same amount could be a red flag for money laundering as it is a common technique used to layer or disguise the origin of illicit funds.
Reference: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide, page 100-101.