An EU Trust and Company Service Provider (TCSP) analyst notices some unusual activity while looking through a customer's financial statements and detailed general ledger. The customer is in the business of importing and exporting machineries. Which transaction indicator warrants further escalation to the compliance officer?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.C
Sure, I'd be happy to help you with this question.
When a Trust and Company Service Provider (TCSP) analyst notices unusual activity while reviewing a customer's financial statements and general ledger, it may be an indication of potential money laundering or other financial crimes. In such a situation, the analyst should escalate the matter to the compliance officer for further review.
To determine which transaction indicator warrants further escalation, we need to examine each answer option in detail:
A. Inter-company loans from the holding company to the subsidiary company to finance the shipment of machinery.
This transaction indicator does not necessarily indicate suspicious activity, as it is a common practice for companies to provide loans to their subsidiaries for business purposes. However, the analyst should review the terms of the loan to ensure that they are reasonable and consistent with market rates. If the terms of the loan are unusual or the borrower's ability to repay the loan is questionable, the analyst should escalate the matter to the compliance officer.
B. The payment of virtual offices services overseas.
This transaction indicator may be suspicious, as the use of virtual offices services could be an attempt to hide the true location of the customer's business operations. The analyst should review the customer's business model and determine whether the use of virtual offices is consistent with the nature of their business. If there is reason to believe that the customer is attempting to conceal the true location of their business operations, the analyst should escalate the matter to the compliance officer.
C. The payment of consultancy fees to unrelated companies and service providers established in a foreign jurisdiction.
This transaction indicator may also be suspicious, as payments to unrelated companies and service providers in foreign jurisdictions could be an attempt to disguise the true nature of the customer's transactions or to transfer funds to a location where they can be accessed without detection. The analyst should review the nature of the consultancy services being provided and determine whether they are consistent with the customer's business operations. If there is reason to believe that the payments are being made for illegitimate purposes, the analyst should escalate the matter to the compliance officer.
D. The payment of company secretarial retainer fees to a foreign company in a tax efficient jurisdiction.
This transaction indicator may also be suspicious, as the use of a foreign company in a tax efficient jurisdiction to provide company secretarial services could be an attempt to conceal the true ownership of the customer's business or to evade taxes. The analyst should review the customer's ownership structure and determine whether the use of a foreign company is consistent with their business operations. If there is reason to believe that the customer is attempting to conceal their ownership or evade taxes, the analyst should escalate the matter to the compliance officer.
Based on the above analysis, option B and option C appear to be the most suspicious and warrant further escalation to the compliance officer.