Classic indicators of suspicious activity often involve use of proxies, unusual cash access, or attempts to avoid scrutiny, as highlighted in FATF and FIU guidance.
Frequent access to a safe deposit vault to withdraw cash by a person closely associated with a government official raises heightened concern. Such behavior may indicate attempts to conceal illicit funds, particularly given the potential exposure to corruption risk associated with politically exposed persons (PEPs) and their close associates.
Similarly, requesting a third party to execute wire transfers on one's behalf to a FATF grey-listed jurisdiction is a well-recognized red flag. This behavior suggests an attempt to evade transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, or enhanced due diligence requirements by distancing oneself from the transaction.
The remaining scenarios describe activities that are either legitimate or explainable with proper documentation and transparency. Merely dealing with an institution previously fined for AML violations or conducting legitimate trade with customs compliance does not, on its own, constitute suspicious activity.

Professional service providers can be misused as enablers of money laundering when they abuse their trusted positions and expertise. FATF guidance highlights several risks linked to such abuse.
The creation of shell companies is a common method used to obscure beneficial ownership and facilitate placement or layering of illicit funds. Similarly, opening third-party accounts to mask the true client identity directly undermines transparency and due diligence requirements.
Additionally, actively directing or facilitating the structuring or movement of illicit funds constitutes direct involvement in money laundering schemes and is a serious criminal offense.
By contrast, opening estate or trust accounts for legitimate, transparent purposes does not inherently pose a financial crime risk when proper due diligence is applied.