Which term describes information based on credible evidence of wrongdoing?

Study for the Certified Bank Secrecy Act Professional Test. Use flashcards and multiple-choice questions with hints and explanations. Get exam ready!

In anti-money-laundering and bank compliance practice, a decision to flag activity relies on reasonable suspicion—that is, a conclusion drawn from credible, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect wrongdoing. This standard sits between a mere hunch and probable cause: it requires enough evidence to justify further inquiry or reporting, without needing the higher threshold required for arrest.

Why this term fits best: it communicates that there is a solid basis for concern, based on observed facts and credible information, rather than an unsubstantiated feeling. It supports actions like heightened due diligence or filing a suspicious activity report, where you must show why the activity appears suspicious and what evidence supports that view.

Why the others aren’t as appropriate: probability of wrongdoing is too high a bar for reporting or preliminary action and is typically tied to arrest; “alleged” frames the accusation but doesn’t speak to the evidentiary basis; “suspicion” alone is too vague and may lack the credibility and specifics that authorities or compliance programs require.