Flagging suspicious transactions
Listen to this lesson
Nigerian voice narration
Fictional training case. Compliance trainee Ifeoma at Delta Savings Bank, Warri, reviews a newly opened account belonging to a fictional trader, 'Mr. Effiong'. In one week it received nine deposits of ₦480,000 each — just under the bank's fictional ₦500,000 reporting threshold — followed by same-day transfers out to three different accounts. Work through the example, identify the evidence needed and practise the method with cleared or synthetic inputs. Any additional figures in the explanation are separate practice examples, not claimed rows in a downloadable file.
Worked example
Ifeoma uses a synthetic table in free chat: nine ₦480,000 deposits, each followed by same-day transfers. The model notes possible near-threshold splitting and rapid movement. The exercise’s ₦500,000 threshold is explicitly invented, not a Nigerian reporting rule. She independently checks the total, ₦4,320,000, and writes a concern for authorised compliance review with transaction references and uncertainties. In actual work, she checks current applicable requirements in approved systems. Neither repeated amounts nor a trader occupation label proves intent or gives AI authority to file a report.
The method
Separate observation, possible typology and authorised next action. Document the supporting transactions and alternative explanations. Do not treat a model flag as proof of money laundering or contact a customer to discuss an internal suspicion outside approved compliance procedures. Actual reporting decisions and requirements belong to authorised personnel and current institutional guidance.
Worked practice and common mistakes
Nine fictional deposits of ₦480,000 total ₦4,320,000. The ₦500,000 threshold is invented solely for this training case, not a Nigerian regulatory reporting limit. Repeated near-threshold deposits and rapid transfers are possible concerns, not proof of intent. Document the observation, check context in approved systems and refer it through authorised compliance procedures. An occupation label alone does not establish suspicious activity.
Review before using the result
Ifeoma's escalation note to her compliance officer listed the nine deposits (total ₦4,320,000), the threshold match, and the inconsistency with stated occupation, without alerting Mr. Effiong. The officer opened a full STR assessment.
Your workplace practice
Use the recommended free assistant with this lesson's fictional example. Ask for the output described in the worked example. Keep a copy of the input and draft. Compare the result with the verification steps above, record any correction, and retain placeholders where evidence is missing. The expected result is a checked draft for human review, not an automatically approved decision. Course examples and practice responses are fictional; amounts, dates, rules and thresholds are not official guidance or supplier quotations.
Why this tool: Can suggest patterns in synthetic transaction tables for verification; it does not determine criminal intent or reporting obligations.
Hit a free limit? Switch to ChatGPT or Gemini and continue — the prompt works in any assistant.