A money laundering investigation that involves multiple countries can be challenging due to different legal systems, languages, cultures, and levels of cooperation. Two factors that can assist such an investigation are:
* Law enforcement and other authorities should have access to financial information that is pertinent to the investigation. This can help them trace the flow of illicit funds, identify the perpetrators and beneficiaries, and gather evidence for prosecution. Financial information can be obtained from various sources, such as financial institutions, financial intelligence units, regulators, and international organizations.
* Law enforcement and other authorities should be allowed to establish and utilize joint investigative teams with law enforcement in other countries. This can enhance coordination, communication, and information sharing among the authorities involved, and allow them to pool resources, expertise, and evidence. Joint investigative teams can also facilitate mutual legal assistance and extradition requests.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, The FATF Recommendations, February 2012, updated June 2019, Recommendation 40, pp. 120-123 FATF, Best Practices on Establishing and Operating a Joint Investigative Team, June 2020, pp. 5-6 FATF, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Investigations, June 2018, pp. 11-12

According to the AML Directive of the EU, obliged entities, such as banks and other financial institutions, are required to apply enhanced vigilance in business relationships and transactions involving high-risk third countries, which are those identified by the Commission as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regimes1. The types of enhanced vigilance requirements are basically extra checks and control measures which are defined in article 18a of the Directive1. However, these requirements are not exhaustive, and obliged entities should also implement additional mitigating measures that are complementary to the enhanced customer due diligence procedures, in accordance with a risk based approach1. This means that obliged entities should assess the level of risk posed by each customer, product, service, transaction, or delivery channel, and apply appropriate measures to mitigate those risks2. The additional mitigating measures may include, for example, obtaining additional information on the customer and the beneficial owner, applying additional elements of enhanced monitoring, increasing the frequency and intensity of transaction testing, or requiring the first payment to be carried out through an account in the customer's name with a bank subject to similar customer due diligence standards1.
1: Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (Text with EEA relevance)
2: Guidance on Risk Factors, EBA, 2021
Reference: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/8f84c163/the-eus-fifth-anti- money-laundering-directive-a-regulatory-compliance-perspective

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation that should cause an anti-money laundering specialist the most concern is B: Financial institutions should not keep anonymous accounts. This is because anonymous accounts are accounts that are opened or maintained without verifying the identity of the customer or the beneficial owner, or with fictitious or incomplete information. Anonymous accounts pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the origin, destination, and purpose of illicit funds, and to evade the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions. Therefore, the FATF Recommendation 10 requires financialinstitutions to identify and verify the identity of their customers and the beneficial owners, and to prohibit the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts or accounts in obviously fictitious names1.
The other options are also FATF Recommendations, but they are less relevant or applicable to the scenario.
Option A: Financial institutions should not warn their customers when information relating to them is being reported to the competent authorities, is the FATF Recommendation 21, which aims to prevent tipping-off, i.
e., alerting the customer that they are being investigated or reported for money laundering or terrorist financing. However, this does not directly address the issue of identity verification or anonymous accounts2.
Option C: Financial institutions should maintain all necessary suspicious transaction report records on transactions, both domestic and international, for at least 5 years, is the FATF Recommendation 11, which aims to ensure that financial institutions have adequate and consistent records of their customers and transactions, and that these records are available to the competent authorities when needed. However, this does not prevent the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts in the first place3. Option D: If financial institutions suspect that funds stem from criminal activity,they should be required to close the account, is not a FATF Recommendation, but rather a possible action that financial institutions may take in accordance with their risk assessment and policies. However, the FATF does not mandate or recommend the closure of accounts as a general rule, and advises that financial institutions should consult with the competent authorities before taking such action, as it may alert the customer or compromise the investigation4.
1: FATF Recommendation 10: Customer due diligence, 1 2: FATF Recommendation 21: Tipping-off and confidentiality, 2 3: FATF Recommendation 11: Record keeping, 3 4: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to Suspicious Transaction Reporting, 5

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, an AML training program should include the requirement that new staff receive training during employee orientation or shortly thereafter on bank procedures. This is because new staff need to be aware of the bank's policies and procedures for complying with the money laundering regulations, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting of suspicious activities. Training new staff as soon as possible also helps to reduce the risk of human errors or oversights that could facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing.
ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 143
ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 144
Technical factsheet Anti-money laundering (AML) training: frequently asked questions, page 1

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 191, "Reloadable open-loop prepaid cards are a high-risk product for money laundering because they can be used to store and move large amounts of funds anonymously. They can also be used to access cash at ATMs or through cash-back transactions at merchants." Therefore, option B is a red flag that may indicate money laundering, as a non-bank customer who regularly loads large amounts of cash onto several prepaid cards may be trying to avoid identification, verification, or transaction reporting requirements.
CAMS Study Guide, page 1911