For cross-border correspondent banking and similar relationships, financial institutions, beyond normal CDD, gather enough information to understand the respondent's business and to determine from public information its reputation and the quality of its supervision including any money laundering or terrorist financing investigation or regulatory action, assess its AML/CFT controls, obtain senior management approval before establishing new relationships, clearly understand each institution's responsibilities, and for payable-through accounts satisfy themselves that the respondent has conducted CDD on customers with direct access and can supply CDD information on request; they may not enter into or continue a correspondent relationship with a shell bank and must satisfy themselves that respondents do not allow their accounts to be used by shell banks; the Interpretive Note extends the requirements to similar relationships such as those for securities transactions or funds transfers.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.