Fourteen Cash Deposits, a New Beneficial Owner and a Quarterly Target
A textile exporter has banked with your branch since 2011: turnover around PKR 180 million a year, all documentary credits, salary disbursements of PKR 2.1 million a month, and about PKR 5.4 million of annual revenue to the branch. Between October and December he makes 14 cash deposits totalling PKR 9.6 million, each between PKR 850,000 and PKR 980,000, always brought in by a different third party, always at the counter - never through the night deposit box he has used for years. In November he adds his brother-in-law as signatory and 60% beneficial owner of a newly formed trading entity that shares the factory address. Two outward remittances of USD 40,000 each go to a UAE account opened four months ago. Asked about the cash, he says a new local buyer pays in cash and declines to name him. The branch is PKR 60 million short of its quarterly deposit target. Your operations manager says the customer is family and the cash is only PKR 9.6 million.
1. Identify the red flags, map them to money-laundering typologies, and list the CDD and EDD steps required.
Read the worked answer
Red flags and typologies:
- Structuring. Fourteen deposits, none above PKR 1 million, in one quarter - behaviour that keeps each transaction under the internal review trigger and well below the PKR 2 million cash transaction reporting threshold, while the total reaches PKR 9.6 million.
- Third-party cash / smurfing. A different individual brings each deposit, which also defeats customer-present identification. The bank cannot evidence the source.
- Break in pattern. A customer who used the night deposit box for years suddenly queues at the counter with cash. The change is the signal.
- Opaque counterparty. A 'new local buyer' with no name, invoice or contract. For a business whose entire flow is documentary, cash sales have no commercial logic.
- Ownership change. A new 60% beneficial owner and signatory in a shell trading entity at the factory address, weeks before a new UAE relationship receives USD 80,000.
- Non-cooperation on source of funds - itself a red flag under a risk-based approach.
Steps: refresh CDD; EDD on source of funds and source of wealth; obtain the trading entity's registration, nature of business and full ownership chain; obtain invoices, contracts or receipts for the cash sales; screen the new beneficial owner and the UAE counterparty against sanctions and adverse media; establish whether the UAE account holder is a related party; and review all accounts linked to the same address or signatories.
2. Decide between continuing under enhanced due diligence, exiting the relationship, or filing a suspicious transaction report - and state what you may and may not tell the customer.
Read the worked answer
File a suspicious transaction report with the financial intelligence unit, and continue only under EDD while the investigation is live. Do not exit silently, and do not carry on as normal.
- The combination of structuring, unexplained third-party cash and a new opaque beneficial owner is not a monitor-and-wait case. The test is suspicion, not proof, and it is met several times over.
- Filing is not conditional on the customer cooperating. Non-cooperation strengthens the case rather than suspending it.
- Tipping off: you must not tell the customer that a report has been, or may be, filed; must not frame questions in a way that reveals it; and must not close the account in a way that signals the reason. The reporting duty overrides the ordinary duty of candour to the customer.
- Exit versus EDD: exit is a legitimate outcome, but exit without a report is the failure mode regulators punish - the bank keeps the risk long enough to be criticised and then hands it to another institution unmarked. If EDD cannot be completed within a defined window, say 30 days, restrict the account to credits and essential debits and exit after filing.
- Documentation: record the decision, the decision-maker, the questions asked, the answers or refusals, and the dates. The file is the defence.
Length of relationship and revenue do not enter this test. A customer since 2011 can still be a customer since 2011 with a new pattern.
3. The operations manager wants the case handled quietly because of the target shortfall. Set out how you escalate and what you must not allow.
Read the worked answer
Escalate in writing, above the branch:
- Put the facts on one page and send it to the compliance/MLRO function the same day with the branch recommendation. The filing decision belongs to the MLRO, not to the branch and not to the operations manager.
- Tell the operations manager, in writing, that 'family' and 'only PKR 9.6 million' are not risk factors that can be documented, that his view has been noted, and that the account is on enhanced monitoring with immediate effect.
- Keep a separate record of any pressure to suppress or delay a report. If a senior officer instructs delay, record the instruction and escalate to internal audit or the board audit committee. Deliberate suppression is a criminal and licensing exposure, not an HR matter.
- Ask the MLRO whether the branch's target shortfall should be disclosed in the quarterly compliance report as an incentive risk.
- Separate the performance conversation from the compliance one: these deposits are not counted toward the target until source is established.
Must not allow: accepting the customer's assurance without documentation; downgrading the risk rating to protect the target; discussing the case with the customer or with staff who do not need to know; or letting the USD 80,000 of remittances continue while EDD is outstanding.
The target resets next quarter. A laundering finding against the branch does not.