Offshore Shell Client, Layered Inflows and an Illiquid Round-Trip
A corporate client incorporated in a jurisdiction with no substance - a registered office and a nominee director - is onboarded by a brokerage. Its sole stated business is "investment holding". Within nine days it wires in RM 4.5 million in three tranches of RM 1.5 million from three different banks in two countries. The stated source is "proceeds from the sale of a property" but no sale document is provided. It then buys RM 3.8 million of an illiquid listed stock in six orders, pushing the price up 14%, and asks the dealer to transfer the shares to a third-party entity at cost. The beneficial owner has not been identified: the client says the shareholder is another company and "the directors handle it". The relationship manager notes the client is "friendly and pays fees promptly" and asks to waive the enhanced due-diligence documentation because the amounts are below the firm's internal reporting threshold.
1. Identify the red flags and state whether onboarding or continuing the relationship is permissible on the current file.
Read the worked answer
Group the flags.
Ownership and structure. An offshore shell with a nominee director and a layered corporate shareholder, no evidence of who owns or controls it, in a jurisdiction chosen for opacity. The firm cannot say who the customer is, which is the first question, not the last.
Funds. Three payments of identical size within nine days from three banks in two countries. That is either structuring or a deliberately unlinked set of transfers; either way it is a pattern, not a coincidence, and the stated source - a property sale - does not explain three banks.
Source of wealth. No sale document, no reconciliation, no plausible link to an "investment holding" business with no substance.
Behaviour. An immediate purchase of an illiquid stock large enough to move the price 14%, followed by a request to transfer the shares to an unrelated third party at cost. That looks like value transfer or layering, not investment.
Attitude. The relationship manager's "friendly, pays fees promptly" is rationalisation, and the request to waive enhanced due diligence because amounts fall below an internal threshold gets the logic backwards - a reporting threshold does not raise or lower the risk.
Conclusion: continuing onboarding is not permissible on the current file. The firm cannot establish beneficial ownership or verify source of funds, and an unexplained rapid round-trip is already under way. Suspend onboarding, escalate to the AML compliance officer, hold the funds subject to legal advice on the firm's ability to do so, and execute no further purchases.
2. What must the firm do about beneficial ownership, and what follows if the client refuses to cooperate?
Read the worked answer
Beneficial ownership must be established, not inferred.
Steps: (1) Require the ownership chart down to natural persons, certified incorporation documents, the register of members, and identification for every person holding 25% or more - or exercising control by other means, including through the nominee or a shareholders' agreement. (2) Verify independently using public registries and screen against sanctions and PEP lists, not only against the client's own statements. (3) Obtain the property sale documentation and reconcile the proceeds with the three inflows - amounts, dates and counterparties must make sense together. (4) Identify the third-party entity before any transfer is even considered; a transfer at cost to an unrelated party is a disposal that needs its own explanation.
If the client refuses or is evasive: treat that as a red flag in itself and a basis for declining or exiting. The firm should not open the account or execute the pending orders, should take legal advice on whether it can return the funds or must hold them pending instructions, and should file a suspicious transaction report - the refusal is itself reportable. Do not let the relationship manager "keep the relationship warm" while documents are pending; the account stays blocked until the AML compliance officer signs off in writing.
3. Set out the reporting obligations: what is reported, when, to whom, and what the client may and may not be told.
Read the worked answer
Report. File a suspicious transaction report with the financial intelligence unit as soon as suspicion arises - there is no monetary threshold and no requirement to be certain. The three tranches, the price-moving purchase and the third-party transfer request are related suspicions; report them together with a chronology, account and transaction references, the ownership structure as known, and the client's explanations or absence of them.
When. Before any further transaction. The proposed transfer of shares at cost must not be executed; once the shares move, the audit trail is harder to follow and the firm may be facilitating layering.
Internally. Notify the AML compliance officer immediately; that officer decides on filing and on whether to freeze, exit or continue under monitoring, and records the decision and reasons.
Tipping off. The client must not be told that a report has been made, that the firm is suspicious, or anything that could allow it to move assets or alert associates. If the client asks why the account is blocked, give a neutral, pre-approved response such as completing standard verification, and refer all questions to compliance. Internal disclosure is on a need-to-know basis, and the relationship manager who requested the waiver should not be the person communicating with the client about the delay.
Records. Keep the report, the decision log, the due-diligence file and any legal advice for the statutory retention period - the file will be the firm's defence.