The principles of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FILLs) aimed at maximizing cooperation between FILLs to more effectively combat money laundering are [1]:
B: Information exchange should take place informally, without too many formal prerequisites. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 55) E: It is within an FlU's authority to sign Memorandums of Understanding independently. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 56)

The customer's profile and transactions are highly suspicious and indicative of possible money laundering.
The customer's income, source of wealth, and investment plans do not match with the large and frequent transfers from a diamond distributor, which is a high-risk business sector for money laundering. The customer's transfers to Hong Kong, which is a high-risk jurisdiction for money laundering, also raise red flags.
The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend contacting the competent authority and local law enforcement to report the suspicious activity and cooperate with any investigation. This is in accordance with the FATF Recommendation 20, which states that "If a financial institution suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are the proceeds of a criminal activity, or are related to terrorist financing, it should be required, by law, to report promptly its suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU)"1. The other options are not appropriate, as they do not address the urgency and severity of the situation.
References: 1: FATF (2012), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, www.fatf-gafi.org/recommendations.html, p. 19.

According to the Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3rd AMLD), a politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, government ministers, judges, senior military officers, or members of parliament1. The 3rd AMLD requires institutions and persons covered by the Directive to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures when dealing with PEPs residing in another Member State or in a third country, in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing risks1. The 3rd AMLD also specifies that a person who is no longer entrusted with a prominent public function shall not be considered a PEP after a period of at least one year has elapsed since that person left office, unless the institution or person covered by the Directive has knowledge or reason to believe that the person is still exposed to specific risks2. However, the Commission Directive
2006/70/EC, which lays down implementing measures for the 3rd AMLD, extends this period to at least two years, and allows Member States to extend it further, depending on the level of risk and the type of prominent public function involved3.
References:
* 1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing
* 2: Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC
* 3: Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of 'politically exposed person' and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, electronic funds transfers (EFTs) are transactions that involve the movement of funds electronically from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, domestically or internationally1. EFTs can be used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating trade, commerce, and remittances, but they can also be exploited by money launderers to conceal the origin, ownership, and destination of illicit funds2. Some of the indicators of money laundering associated with using EFTs are:
* Funds transfers to or from a financial secrecy haven without an apparent business reason. Financial secrecy havens are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of banking secrecy, low or no taxes, lax regulation and supervision, and weak or non-existent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures3. Money launderers may use these havens to hide their illicit funds, evade taxes, and avoid scrutiny from authorities. Funds transfers to or from these havens without a clear or plausible explanation may indicate an attempt to launder money or finance terrorism.
* Funds transfers are received or sent from the same person to or from different accounts. This may indicate a layering technique, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership of the funds4. Money launderers may use this technique to avoid detection, reporting, or freezing of their funds by authorities or financial institutions.
* Payment or receipts with no apparent link to legitimate contracts, goods or services. This may indicate a trade-based money laundering technique, which is the process of using trade transactions to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under-invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents. Money launderers may use this technique to transfer value across borders, evade taxes or customs duties, or justify the movement of funds that have no legitimate origin or purpose.
The other option is incorrect because:
* Regular and frequent transfers from the account of a large company said to be payment for goods bought on credit is not necessarily an indicator of money laundering associated with using EFTs. This may be a normal business practice for some companies that have a high volume of transactions or a long-term relationship with their suppliers or customers. However, this may also be a red flag if the company is not well-known, has no physical presence, has no apparent business activity, or is located in a high-risk jurisdiction. Therefore, this option requires further investigation and verification before concluding that it is an indicator of money laundering.
References:
1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 104 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 107 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 108