The Nominee Shareholder and the USD 9,700 Wires
The Seoul branch of a foreign broker onboards 'HanRiver Trading Co.', whose shareholder is a BVI company with a nominee director; the beneficial owner field says 'to be confirmed'. The RM notes the client was referred by the branch CEO. Over 11 weeks the account receives 14 incoming USD wires of USD 9,700 each from UAE and Cyprus, buys Korean ETFs, and sends proceeds to a Hong Kong account. The branch's automated alert threshold is USD 10,000, so no alert fired. The RM requests a temporary limit increase. The London AML team says to wait for the annual review. A junior analyst finds a news article linking the BVI shareholder to a Korean politician's nephew. The compliance officer must decide before the next wire.
1. What CDD/EDD and beneficial ownership steps were required at onboarding and now? Can the branch rely on the London AML team's annual review?
Read the worked answer
At onboarding the branch had to identify the customer, its beneficial owner and the natural persons who ultimately control it. 'To be confirmed' is not an acceptable beneficial-ownership result. A BVI company with a nominee director is a higher-risk structure requiring enhanced due diligence: ownership chart, nominee agreement, control persons, source of funds and source of wealth, purpose of the account, expected transaction profile, and PEP screening of the beneficial owners and close associates. The UAE/Cyprus/Hong Kong corridor and the near-threshold wire pattern require refreshed EDD now. The branch cannot hide behind the London team's annual review: Korean AML law applies to the branch, and local compliance remains responsible for CDD quality and suspicious-transaction reporting. 'CEO referral' is a conflict, not a comfort. The branch should suspend the limit increase, obtain missing ownership information, and document why the file was accepted without a verified beneficial owner.
2. Is the pattern suspicious? Explain structuring, threshold design, and what STR action is required, including timing and tipping-off.
Read the worked answer
Yes. Fourteen wires of USD 9,700 from high-risk jurisdictions, just below the branch's USD 10,000 alert line, are a classic structuring indicator. The branch's internal threshold is not the legal test: suspicion depends on the whole pattern, not on crossing a number. Add the shell-like BVI layer, nominee director, 'to be confirmed' owner, rapid ETF purchases and onward transfer to Hong Kong, plus the possible political link. The compliance officer should file a suspicious transaction report with KoFIU without delay and not wait for the annual review. The report should describe the pattern, counterparties, jurisdictions, account activity, the beneficial-ownership gap and the PEP link. Do not tell the client, the RM or the referring CEO that a report has been made; tipping-off is prohibited. Internal escalation to the CEO should be handled on a need-to-know basis, with separate reporting to the board or audit committee if the CEO is conflicted.
3. What account controls and record retention should follow while the STR is assessed?
Read the worked answer
Restrict new incoming wires and the requested limit increase pending EDD completion; require senior compliance approval for any transaction; place the account on enhanced monitoring; screen all parties against sanctions lists; and consider whether a freeze is legally required (sanctions) or merely prudent (suspicion). Do not abruptly close the account in a way that tips off the customer; a controlled exit may be appropriate later. Retain CDD records, the STR, supporting documents and the rationale for at least the statutory retention period (five years under the AML regime). Preserve the RM's messages, the CEO referral note and the London team's advice. Record why the automated threshold was set at USD 10,000 and whether it was calibrated to the legal threshold or simply copied from another jurisdiction. Feed the case into training and a threshold review so that near-threshold patterns are escalated, not suppressed.