The Partner's Referral

Recognize the conflict: the instruction to 'keep it informal' is a request to lower the investigation's visibility because of a personal relationship with the CEO. That creates a conflict of interest, potential reputational risk, and a risk of tipping off the client. It does not override the firm's policies or the investigator's independence.

Immediate response: do not agree to stop documenting, do not remove the client from the case system, and do not discuss the case with the client. Tell the manager that policy requires the matter to remain documented and escalated. Keep the tone professional and factual.

Document: the date and time, the manager's exact words, who else was present, your response, and any follow-up instruction. Preserve emails, chat messages, and case notes. Record why you considered the instruction a conflict.

Escalate: report to the chief compliance officer or money laundering reporting officer, and if the manager is in that reporting line, escalate to audit or the board committee. The escalation should state the facts, not accuse the manager of misconduct.

Reasoning: the goal is to protect the integrity of the investigation and the firm. A personal relationship may be relevant context, but it cannot be a reason to reduce scrutiny. Documenting contemporaneously also protects you if the decision is later questioned.

Do not share informally. A request from a foreign financial intelligence unit is not self-authorizing. Verify the legal basis, whether a valid memorandum of understanding or reciprocal arrangement exists, what data protection and confidentiality rules apply, and whether the firm's regulator or legal counsel must approve.

Route the request through the money laundering reporting officer and legal. If sharing is authorized, provide only the minimum necessary information, mark it with handling caveats, and log what was shared, with whom, and under what authority.

Risks of informal sharing:

• Breach of client confidentiality and data protection law.
• Disclosure of the existence of a suspicious activity report, which is prohibited.
• Tipping off the client or compromising a law enforcement investigation.
• Creating an unauthorized channel that could be used to pressure the firm later.

If not authorized: decline in writing, explain that the request must go through the proper legal channel, and document the decision. Do not simply ignore the email.

Reasoning: cooperation with foreign authorities is legitimate, but it must be lawful and controlled. The investigator's job is to preserve the case and the firm's legal position, not to be helpful at the expense of confidentiality.

Clarify what 'sit on' means. If legal means preserve the emails, restrict access, and review for privilege, that is proper. If legal means remove them from the case file, delay the suspicious activity report, or avoid documenting them, that is not proper and should be escalated.

Preserve, do not destroy: place the emails under a legal hold, restrict access to the smallest group, and maintain an index and access log. Segregate them in a privilege review folder if counsel directs, but do not delete them or omit their existence from the case chronology.

Continue the analysis: privilege may affect disclosure, not whether the activity is suspicious. The suspicious activity report must be complete and accurate. If legal advises that specific content is privileged, record the advice and escalate any instruction that would suppress material facts.

Document: the request, the scope of the hold, who has access, and the reason. If the deadline is 12 days away, confirm in writing that the privilege review will not cause the report to be filed late.

Reasoning: legal privilege is a legitimate doctrine, but it is not a tool for making evidence disappear. The investigator should cooperate with counsel while preserving the integrity of the case file and the reporting obligation.