Which should authorities do to safeguard AML information exchanged with other countries?

Treating exchanged information equivalently to domestic information is a general guiding principle but does not itself create a binding, person-specific obligation that actively prevents unauthorized access or disclosure.

Non-disclosure agreements impose a formal, legally binding confidentiality requirement on each individual accessing exchanged AML data, providing a direct and enforceable safeguard that protects the integrity of cross-border investigations and prevents unauthorized disclosure.

Court orders are jurisdiction-specific and reactive mechanisms that are impractical as a uniform, proactive safeguard for all internationally exchanged AML intelligence.

Destroying information after an investigation eliminates evidence that may be needed for appeals, related prosecutions, or future investigations, making this approach contrary to sound AML record-keeping practice.