The Premium Paid in Cash by a Third Party
A customer, Mr. Farhan, opens a bancassurance life policy with an annual premium of PKR 1.2 million. He pays the first premium in cash at the branch counter. The person paying is not Mr. Farhan but a man who says he is his 'cousin' and produces Mr. Farhan's CNIC copy and a signed authority letter. The branch cashier accepts the payment because the amount is below the branch's internal cash-handling ceiling. Six weeks later, Mr. Farhan requests cancellation and a refund to a different bank account in a third party's name. The branch has no record of a source-of-funds declaration. The relationship officer notes that Mr. Farhan's stated occupation is 'student' and his declared annual income on the proposal form is PKR 600,000.
1. Identify the AML/CFT and conduct red flags in this scenario.
Read the worked answer
The scenario contains multiple, mutually reinforcing red flags:
- Third-party cash payment. A premium paid in cash by someone other than the policyholder, with only an authority letter, is a classic layering indicator. Cash breaks the audit trail; third-party payment obscures the beneficial payer.
- Cash amount. PKR 1.2 million in cash is a large cash transaction that should trigger enhanced scrutiny and, where applicable, a cash transaction report under the bank's AML programme, regardless of internal cashier ceilings.
- Income/product mismatch. A 'student' with declared income of PKR 600,000 buying a PKR 1.2 million annual premium policy is a stark affordability and source-of-wealth inconsistency. Where did the money come from?
- No source-of-funds declaration. For a high-premium, cash-paid policy there should be documented source of funds/wealth; its absence is a control failure.
- Refund diversion. Requesting cancellation and refund to a third party's account is a major red flag - it suggests the policy was a vehicle to move funds and then extract them to a different beneficiary.
- Early cancellation. Cancelling within weeks of a single large premium, combined with the above, fits a 'premium refund' laundering pattern.
Individually some items are explainable; together they form a coherent suspicious-activity picture.
2. What should the bank have done at onboarding and at the refund request, and what are the reporting obligations?
Read the worked answer
At onboarding (premium payment):
- Conduct CDD/EDD proportionate to the high premium: verify the payer's identity, establish the relationship between payer and policyholder, and obtain a source-of-funds/source-of-wealth declaration.
- Reconcile declared income with premium; a student declaring PKR 600,000 cannot plausibly fund PKR 1.2 million - escalate before accepting.
- Prefer bank-transfer payment from the policyholder's own account; if cash is accepted, document why and file the required cash transaction report.
- Record the third-party payer and authority letter in the file and assess whether to proceed at all.
At the refund request:
- Do not process a refund to a third-party account. Refunds should go to the policyholder's verified account, consistent with the payment trail, unless a documented, verified exception applies.
- Treat the request as an escalation trigger: re-verify identity, obtain explanation of the third-party account, and refer to the MLRO/compliance.
Reporting obligations:
- File a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) with the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) where suspicion is formed; do not tip off the customer.
- File or confirm the cash transaction report for the large cash premium as required by the AML regime.
- Preserve records and the audit trail; cooperate with any subsequent investigation.
- Review why the branch controls (income verification, source of funds, refund-to-third-party) failed and remediate.