Is Schweser Answer wrong on this?

Bob Blanford, CFA, is an investment analyst for a large global brokerage firm. He recently moved to Ragatan, a developing country with few securities laws and regulations. As part of conducting a company analysis, Blanford interviews Ravi Shanti, vice-president of finance at Starr Industries. Starr is a major industrial firm in Ragatan and a client at Blanford’s firm. Based on his analysis, Blanford suspects that Shanti may have deliberately overstated Starr’s current earnings and its earnings for the past several quarters. If this information becomes public, Blanford believes that Starr’s stock price will drop substantially. Blanford suspects that Shanti may have violated Ragatan’s securities laws. Which of the following statements is least likely to comply with Standard I, Professionalism? Blanford should:

A) take no action. B) determine the legality of the activity, possibly by consulting counsel. C) disassociate himself from the client, if the activity is illegal or unethical.

Your answer: B was incorrect. The correct answer was A) take no action.

Because Blanford suspects Shanti of engaging in ongoing illegal activities, Blanford should take action by determining the legality of the suspected action, disassociating from any illegal activity, and urging his firm to attempt to persuade Shanti to cease such conduct if such an activity is illegal or unethical. Based on the explanation, the answer should be B intead of A no action?

Sounds to me like the explanation matches with the correct answer being A. They’re asking which one of the items is least likely to comply w/ Professionalism. The explanation states that the analyst should take action, thus A. taking no action is the least likely to comply with CFA.