According to the Financial Action Task Force methodology, which situations would require a financial institution (FI) to consider filing a suspicious activity report?

While transactions involving politically exposed persons (PEPs) are subject to enhanced scrutiny, the mere presence of a PEP as a beneficiary does not automatically necessitate filing a suspicious activity report. Financial institutions may have specific policies to assess risks associated with PEPs, but this situation alone does not meet the threshold for suspicious activity.

Identifying a payer as a dealer in precious metals or stones may indicate a higher risk of money laundering; however, it does not inherently require filing a suspicious activity report. The context of the transaction and additional risk factors would need to be assessed before concluding that a SAR is necessary.

Transactions involving the exchange of cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies can present risks, but they do not automatically trigger a requirement for a SAR. The decision to file would depend on the overall context, the amount involved, and whether there are additional indicators of suspicious behavior.