One of the criteria that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) uses to define non-cooperative countries and territories (NCCTs) is the lack of adequate rules for the licensing and creation of financial institutions, especially those with no or minimal presence, and the lack of effective systems for checking the backgrounds of managers and beneficial owners of such institutions. This criterion aims to prevent the establishment and operation of shell banks or other entities that can be used for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes.
The FATF requires that countries and territories should have laws and regulations that ensure that financial institutions are subject to adequate licensing or registration procedures, that the authorities have the power to deny or revoke licenses or registrations, and that the authorities have access to information on the identity, reputation, and financial soundness of the managers and beneficial owners of financial institutions.
References: = Some of the references that support this answer are:
About the Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories NCCT Initiative, Section "The review and listing process": "The FATF established at that time four regional review groups (Americas, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Africa/Middle East) consisting of representatives from the FATF member governments that served as the main points of contact with the reviewed country or territory. ... The review groups gathered relevant laws, regulations and other relevant information, analysed this information against the
25 NCCT criteria, and drafted a report that was sent to the jurisdictions for comment." Annual Review of Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories 2006-2007: Eighth NCCT Review, Annex 1: "List of Criteria for Defining Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories", Criterion 1:
"Licensing and creation of financial institutions, in particular those with no physical presence, and the ability to obtain information on the beneficial ownership and control of such institutions." FATF (Financial Action Task Force) Countries 2024 - World Population Review, Section "Blacklisted Countries": "These are countries which were previously placed on the grey list and advised by the FATF to adopt the recommended financial security procedures, but have either failed or refused to do so.
Blacklisted countries may be labeled as Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories (NCCTs)."

According to the FFIEC BSA/AML Manual1, a U.S. bank should have policies, procedures, and processes to monitor and report suspicious activity associated with U.S. dollar drafts, which are bank drafts or checks denominated in U.S. dollars and made available at foreign financial institutions. These drafts are drawn on a
U.S. correspondent account by a foreign financial institution and can be used to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing. The manual states that "[t]he potential for facilitating money laundering or terrorist financing, OFAC violations, and other serious crimes increases when a U.S. bank is unable to identify and adequately understand the transactions of the ultimate users (all or most of whom are outside of the United States) of its account with a foreign correspondent."2 Therefore, the compliance officer should notify Foreign Bank A of the discovery and seek documentation supporting Foreign Bank A was collusive and a willing partner with Foreign Bank B in the activity, as this would indicate a breach of the correspondent banking agreement and a possible violation of U.S. laws and regulations. The compliance officer should also document the findings and actions taken, and escalate the matter to senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.
The other options are not the best steps for the compliance officer to take. Option A is not relevant, as the issue is not related to tax evasion, but to money laundering or terrorist financing. Option B is premature, as the compliance officer should first verify the nature and extent of the suspicious activity and the involvement of Foreign Bank A before deciding whether to terminate or restrict the correspondent relationship. Option D is not feasible, as the compliance officer does not have the authority or the means to notify other U.S. financial institutions who maintain U.S. dollar correspondent accounts for Foreign Bank A and Foreign Bank B, and this could also interfere with ongoing investigations or law enforcement actions.
References:
FFIEC BSA/AML Manual, Risks Associated with Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, U.S.
Dollar Drafts
Denting Dirty Dollar-Clearing: US Court of Appeals Upholds Money-Laundering Convictions Based on the Use of US Correspondent Banking Accounts, Freshfields Blog AMLA Expands DOJ Grand Jury Subpoena Power Over Correspondent Bank Accounts and Foreign Banks, Money Laundering News