CAMS Sample Questions Answers

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, FSRBs are regional organizations that help the FATF implement its global AML/CFT policy and standards in over 200 affiliated countries1. FSRBs have their own high-level principles and objectives that govern their relationship with the FATF and their members2. Among these principles and objectives, two that should be included in a FSRB update are:

• Issue country-specific Mutual Evaluation reports. This is the process by which FSRBs assess the compliance and effectiveness of their members’ AML/CFT systems, based on the FATF standards and methodology3. Mutual Evaluation reports provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each jurisdiction, as well as recommendations for improvement4.
• Identify jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT regimes. This is the process by which FSRBs, in coordination with the FATF, monitor and publicly list the countries that pose a risk to the international financial system due to their strategic deficiencies in AML/CFT. This process aims to encourage and assist these jurisdictions to address their gaps and enhance their cooperation with the global network.

The other three options are incorrect because:

• Address AML/CFT technical assistance of individual members is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a core function of FSRBs. FSRBs may facilitate or coordinate technical assistance, but they are not the primary providers or funders of such assistance.
• Establish AML/CFT standards and typologies is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a role of FSRBs. FSRBs are expected to adopt and implement the FATF standards, not to create their own. Typologies are the methods and trends of money laundering and terrorist financing, which are identified and analyzed by the FATF and FSRBs through research and workshops.
• Protect the reputation and standing of FATF is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a responsibility of FSRBs. FSRBs are autonomous and independent organizations that have their own governance and accountability mechanisms. FSRBs are expected to cooperate and coordinate with the FATF, but not to act as its agents or representatives.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 64 2: FATF, High-Level Principles for the Relationship between the FATF and the FATF-Style Regional Bodies, February 2019, 3 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 65 4: FATF, FATF Methodology for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT Systems, February 2013 (updated October 2019), [12] : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 66 : FATF, High-Risk and Other Monitored Jurisdictions, 4 : FATF, High-Level Principles for the Relationship between the FATF and the FATF-Style Regional Bodies, February 2019, 3, p. 4 : FATF, High-Level Principles for the Relationship between the FATF and the FATF-Style Regional Bodies, February 2019, 3, p. 2 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 67 : FATF, High-Level Principles for the Relationship between the FATF and the FATF-Style Regional Bodies, February 2019, 3, p. 3 : FATF, High-Level Principles for the Relationship between the FATF and the FATF-Style Regional Bodies, February 2019, 3, p. 5 : FATF, FATF Methodology for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT Systems, February 2013 (updated October 2019), [12], p. 9 : FATF, High-Risk and Other Monitored Jurisdictions, 4, p. 1

Results of related audits and examinations are the most useful report for an anti-money laundering specialist to inform senior management about the status of the anti-money laundering program across the organization. This is because audits and examinations provide an independent and objective assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance of the anti-money laundering program, as well as identify any gaps, weaknesses, or areas for improvement. Audits and examinations can also help senior management to monitor the performance of the anti-money laundering program, ensure accountability and oversight, and demonstrate commitment to regulatory expectations and best practices.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering Preparedness Survey Report 2020 - Deloitte US, page 4.
• CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 39.

One of the key components of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is to implement adequate customer due diligence (CDD) measures for new accounts. This includes verifying the identity of the party opening the account, determining the beneficial owner(s) of the account, and seeking to determine the source of deposited funds. These measures help the financial institution (FI) to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, assess the risk profile of the customer, and detect and report any suspicious or unusual activity. Documenting the identity of the party opening the account and the beneficial owner(s) of the account also helps the FI to comply with the record-keeping and reporting requirements of the AML laws and regulations, and to cooperate with the authorities in case of investigations or inquiries. Seeking to determine the source of deposited funds helps the FI to prevent the introduction of illicit funds into the financial system, and to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies between the customer’s profile and activity.

References:

• 1: FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Banking Sector1
• 2: OCC Bulletin 2020-10: Customer Due Diligence and Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Procedures2
• 3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

 the compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement investigation, but only after receiving a formal written request that specifies the scope and purpose of the information sought. This is to ensure that the compliance officer complies with the legal and regulatory obligations of the bank, such as confidentiality, privacy, and data protection. The compliance officer should also document the request and the information provided, and report the incident to the senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.

References:

• FFIEC BSA/AML Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program - BSA Compliance Officer, section “BSA Compliance Officer”, paragraph 3: “The BSA compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is implemented effectively, including timely updates in response to changes in regulations or business activities, and for managing all aspects of the BSA/AML compliance program. The BSA compliance officer is also responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is communicated to all personnel and that adequate training is provided to appropriate personnel.”
• Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers, section “Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers”, paragraph 36: “The AML/CFT compliance officer should ensure that the institution cooperates with the competent authorities, including by providing them with all the information they require in a timely manner, in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.”
• Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer Job Description, section “Responsibilities of an AML Compliance Officer”, bullet point 6: “Cooperate with law enforcement and regulatory bodies as required.”

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that facilitates and prompts the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences1. The Egmont Group suggests that one of the core objectives that would lead to an effective national FIU is to have absolute trust amongst national and international stakeholders before sensitive information will be exchanged with confidence2. This means that the FIU should establish and maintain a high level of credibility, professionalism, and integrity in its operations, and ensure that the information it receives and disseminates is protected and used appropriately. The FIU should also comply with the Egmont Group’s principles and standards for information exchange, and foster a culture of mutual trust and cooperation with other FIUs and relevant authorities3.

The other three options are incorrect because:

• The FIU must operate from physically separated premises from other law enforcement agencies and government offices is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and be free from undue influence or interference, it does not necessarily have to be physically separated from other agencies or offices. The FIU may be located within the judicial, law enforcement, administrative, or hybrid model, depending on the country’s legal and institutional framework4.
• The FIU meets the Egmont Group assessment criteria is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While meeting the Egmont Group assessment criteria is a requirement for becoming and remaining a member of the Egmont Group, it is not an objective in itself. The assessment criteria are based on the FATF recommendations and the Egmont Group’s own documents, and they serve as a benchmark for evaluating the FIU’s compliance and effectiveness5.
• The FIU must be able to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU may contribute to the prevention and detection of corruption, as well as the recovery of illicit assets, by analyzing and sharing financial intelligence, it is not the sole or primary responsibility of the FIU to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country. This is a broader and more complex goal that involves multiple actors and factors, such as political will, legal framework, institutional capacity, civil society, media, and international cooperation.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 64 2: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 2 3: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 3-4 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 67 5: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Support and Compliance Process, June 2013, [6], p. 3-4 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 91-92

The USA PATRIOT Act is a comprehensive legislation that was enacted in 2001 to enhance the powers and tools of the US authorities to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats to the national security and the integrity of the financial system. The USA PATRIOT Act contains several provisions that affect the relationship between US banks and foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the US.

One of these provisions is Section 319, which allows the US authorities to seize the funds of a foreign bank held with a US bank, if the foreign bank refuses to comply with a subpoena or a request for records related to the correspondent account. This provision is intended to prevent foreign banks from using their correspondent accounts in the US to facilitate transactions involving tainted funds, such as proceeds of crime, funds intended to support terrorism, or funds subject to sanctions or asset freezing orders. Section 319 also requires US banks to maintain records of the owners and agents of foreign banks that have correspondent accounts with them, and to terminate such accounts if requested by the US authorities.

Therefore, if a foreign bank maintains a correspondent account in the US, and the US authorities find out that the account has been used to facilitate a transaction involving tainted funds, the US authorities can seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 10
• USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319, page 55-57
• The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, Section III, page 9-10
• [The USA PATRI

A financial institution should examine the country or location where the customer is from or does business, the type and size of the business the customer runs, and the legal structure of the customer’s business, because these factors can indicate the level of money laundering risk associated with the customer. For example, some countries or locations may have weak anti-money laundering laws or high levels of corruption, some types or sizes of businesses may be more prone to generating or concealing illicit funds, and some legal structures may be more complex or opaque than others, making it harder to identify the beneficial owners or controllers of the customer.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD)
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD), Pages 42-44

The bank’s internal investigation is aimed at understanding the activities and legitimacy of the client who wants to open multiple accounts for their swimming pool company, with each account assigned to a debit card for the company’s technicians. The purpose of these accounts, as stated by the client, is to facilitate the purchase of pool chemicals. To conduct a thorough investigation, the bank can consider several available sources of information. Let’s analyze each option:

A. Client’s credit bureau report: The client’s credit bureau report primarily contains information related to the individual’s credit history, including loans, credit cards, payment patterns, and any financial obligations. While this information may be useful in assessing the client’s creditworthiness, it may not provide substantial insight into the specific activities and legitimacy of the swimming pool company or the need for multiple accounts.

B. Local law enforcement investigation report: The local law enforcement investigation report may contain information about any criminal or suspicious activities involving the client or the swimming pool company, such as fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, or other offenses. However, this source may not be readily available to the bank, as it may require a formal request or a subpoena to access. Moreover, the report may not be comprehensive or up-to-date, as it may depend on the scope and progress of the law enforcement investigation.

C. Interview swimming pool technicians and chemical suppliers: The interview with the swimming pool technicians and chemical suppliers may provide some information about the nature and frequency of the transactions involving the pool chemicals, such as the amount, the price, the payment method, and the delivery mode. However, this source may not be reliable or verifiable, as the technicians and suppliers may be biased or influenced by the client. Moreover, the interview may not be feasible or practical, as it may require the bank to contact and arrange meetings with multiple parties, which may be time-consuming and costly.

D. Internet search showing how such business are typically operated: The internet search showing how such business are typically operated may provide some information about the industry standards and best practices for running a swimming pool company, such as the average number of technicians, the typical expenses, the common suppliers, and the expected revenue. This source may be useful in comparing and contrasting the client’s business model and operations with the industry norms and identifying any red flags or anomalies. Moreover, this source may be easily accessible and inexpensive, as it may only require the bank to use a web browser and a search engine.

Therefore, the best available source for the bank’s internal investigation on this client’s activities is option D.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS 2: CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS 3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs 4: Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) 5: Bank’s Internal Investigation on Client’s Activities | CAMS Exam Prep 6: South Florida: Couple arrested for more than $2 million fraud 7: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

 A U.S. bank must block or reject an international funds transfer when there is an OFAC designated party to the transaction, regardless of the beneficiary or the correspondent bank. This is because the U.S. bank is prohibited from dealing with any person or entity that is on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) or subject to any other OFAC sanctions program1. The SDN List includes individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, that are designated under programs that are not country-specific2. The U.S. bank must also report any blocked or rejected transactions to OFAC within 10 business days3.

References: 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Office of Foreign Assets Control - Office of Foreign … 2: Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN) Human … 3: [Reporting Blocked Transactions | Office of Foreign Assets Control]

The Wolfsberg Principles for Private Banking are a set of guidelines for private banking relationships that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners in certain circumstances that may indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Among the options given, A, B, and C are the correct choices that reflect the circumstances listed in the Principles.

Foreign jurisdictions are countries or territories other than the one where the bank operates or where the client or beneficial owner resides. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to foreign jurisdictions, especially those that have weak or inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or that are subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures.

High Risk Countries are countries or territories that are identified by credible sources, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), as having inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to high risk countries, and apply enhanced measures to mitigate the risks.

High Risk activities are activities that involve clients and beneficial owners whose source of wealth or funds originates from sectors or industries that are known to be vulnerable to money laundering, such as cash-intensive businesses, gambling, arms trade, precious metals and stones, or art and antiquities. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are engaged in high risk activities, and verify the legitimacy and origin of their wealth and funds.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012)” published by the Wolfsberg Group. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the Wolfsberg Principles and their application on the Wolfsberg Group website and the Lexology website.

having an outdated and incomplete risk assessment could expose the financial institution to significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks that are not identified, measured, or mitigated. The risk assessment is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering program, and it should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the business environment, customer profile, product offerings, delivery channels, and regulatory requirements12. A risk assessment that is several years old and does not cover all current products and services could fail to capture the emerging threats and vulnerabilities that the financial institution faces, and could result in inadequate or inappropriate controls, policies, and procedures. This could lead to the highest potential for unmitigated risk, as the financial institution could be exploited by money launderers and terrorist financiers, and face regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and financial losses.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS1
• Risk assess your business for money laundering supervision - GOV.UK2

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws1. MLATs provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence that can be used for prosecution and judicial proceedings, such as witness statements, bank records, search and seizure orders, and asset forfeiture2. MLATs also facilitate the cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities of different jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, and cybercrime3. The other options are incorrect because:

• B. MLATs do not receive reports of suspicious transactions from financial institutions, but rather request specific information or evidence from foreign authorities. Financial institutions report suspicious transactions to their domestic Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which may then share the information with foreign FIUs through other mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group or bilateral agreements4.
• C. MLATs do not obtain intelligence that might lead to evidence, but rather request evidence that is already available or can be obtained by foreign authorities. Intelligence is a broader term that refers to any information that is relevant to the security or interests of a country, and may not be admissible as evidence in a court of law5. Intelligence may be obtained through other means, such as covert operations, surveillance, or informants6.
• D. MLATs do not issue the Principles of Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), but rather follow them. The Principles of Information Exchange are a set of guidelines that were adopted by the Egmont Group of FIUs in 2001, and aim to enhance the cooperation and communication among FIUs in exchanging financial information and intelligence7. The Principles of Information Exchange are not legally binding, but rather reflect the best practices and standards of the FIU community.

References:

• 1: Mutual legal assistance treaty - Wikipedia
• 2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, page 1
• 3: The Mutual Legal Assistance Problem explained | wilmap
• 4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 125
• 5: Intelligence - Wikipedia
• 6: Intelligence cycle - Wikipedia
• 7: Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia
• : Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units for Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Cases

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, financial institutions should obtain senior management approval before establishing new correspondent banking relationships1. This is to ensure that the financial institution has assessed the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the respondent institution and has applied appropriate due diligence measures. The FATF also requires financial institutions to gather sufficient information about the respondent institution, its business activities, its reputation, its supervision, and its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policies and procedures1. Additionally, the FATF recommends that financial institutions document the respective responsibilities of each institution and prevent the use of their accounts by shell banks1.

References:

• 1: Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services, FATF, 2016

One of the key components of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is customer due diligence (CDD), which involves verifying the identity of the customer, understanding the nature and purpose of the customer’s relationship with the financial institution (FI), and assessing the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing that the customer poses. CDD is essential for preventing and detecting the misuse of the FI’s services by criminals, and for complying with the relevant laws and regulations.

However, CDD can be challenging for FIs that offer online services to customers, as there is a greater difficulty in matching the customer with the provided identification documentation. Unlike face-to-face interactions, online services rely on electronic or remote methods of identification and verification, such as scanned copies of documents, biometric data, digital signatures, or third-party verification services. These methods may not be as reliable or secure as physical verification, and may expose the FI to the risk of identity fraud, document forgery, or impersonation. Moreover, online services may attract customers from different jurisdictions, which may have different standards and requirements for identification and verification, and may pose different levels of risk.

Therefore, FIs that offer online services to customers should implement enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures to mitigate the risk of money laundering, such as obtaining additional information or documentation from the customer, applying more stringent verification procedures, conducting more frequent and intensive monitoring of the customer’s transactions and behavior, and restricting or limiting the types or amounts of transactions that the customer can perform online.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 82
• Anti-Money Laundering in a Nutshell, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 63
• Guidance on Digital Identity, Section 2, page 8
• Anti-Money Laundering, The Basics: Installment 1, Section 3.2, page 5

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution’s risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:

• The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution’s anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.
• The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution’s anti-money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution’s internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program’s adequacy and effectiveness1.
• The program should be sent to the institution’s government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution’s government regulator may request or review the institution’s anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS

Concentration accounts are internal accounts used by financial institutions to aggregate funds from or for various clients or other accounts. They are also known as omnibus accounts or suspense accounts. The use of concentration accounts may obscure the audit trail and the identity of the clients involved in the transactions. Therefore, the Wolfsberg Principles on Private Banking, which are a set of voluntary guidelines for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing in the private banking sector, prohibit the use of concentration accounts in a way that would prevent appropriate monitoring or identification of the clients or their funds12.

References:

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 4.3 2: The Wolfsberg Principles - an analysis, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 7 No. 3, 2004, pp. 237-240

 Bearer shares are unregistered equity securities owned by the possessor of the physical share documents. The issuing company does not record the identity or ownership of the shareholders, nor does it track the transfers of ownership. This means that the holder of the bearer share can claim ownership and exercise the rights associated with the share, such as voting and receiving dividends, by simply presenting the physical certificate. This also makes the transfer of ownership very easy, as it only requires the delivery of the physical document, without any formalities or intermediaries. Bearer shares are therefore attractive for those who seek anonymity, privacy, and flexibility in their corporate structures.

References:

• Investopedia: Bearer Share
• SuperMoney: Bearer Shares: Definition, Examples, and Implications
• ACAMS: Bearer Shares

A qualified independent party/auditor is the most effective resource to evaluate the effectiveness of an anti-money laundering program. This is because an independent auditor can provide an objective and unbiased assessment of the program, identify any weaknesses or gaps, and make recommendations for improvement. An independent auditor can also verify the compliance of the program with the relevant regulations and best practices, and test the adequacy and functionality of the internal controls, customer due diligence processes, and transaction monitoring systems. An independent auditor can also help an organization prepare for regulatory examinations and audits, and avoid potential penalties or sanctions.

References: = The main references for this question are the following sources:

• The document titled “Frequently Asked Questions Conducting Independent Reviews of Money Services Business Anti-Money Laundering Programs” published by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in July 2010. You can access it by clicking here.
• The document titled “AML Audit: How to Effectively Assess Your Compliance Program” published by Alessa in May 2023. You can access it by clicking here.
• The document titled “Mutual Evaluations” published by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). You can access it by clicking here.

The 40 Recommendations provide a complete set of countermeasures against money laundering

and terrorist financing, covering

• the identification of risks and development of appropriate policies;

• the criminal justice system and law enforcement;

• the financial system and its regulation;

• the transparency of legal persons and arrangements; and

• international cooperation.

Sanctions screening and transaction monitoring rules are two of the most common controls that FIs use to identify suspicious money-laundering activity. Sanctions screening is the process of checking customers, transactions, and counterparties against various lists of sanctioned individuals, entities, and countries issued by national and international authorities. Sanctions screening helps FIs to avoid doing business with or facilitating the activities of those who are involved in terrorism, proliferation, human rights violations, or other criminal activities. Transaction monitoring rules are the criteria or scenarios that FIs use to detect unusual or potentially suspicious patterns of transactions or behaviors of customers or accounts. Transaction monitoring rules help FIs to identify transactions that deviate from the expected norms, such as large cash deposits, frequent wire transfers, or transactions with high-risk jurisdictions. Transaction monitoring rules also help FIs to comply with their reporting obligations, such as filing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) or Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs).

References: = ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Chapter 4: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, Section 4.2: Customer Identification Program (CIP) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD); Money laundering and terrorist financing, Section: Anti Money Laundering (AML) regulations; The Three Stages Of Money Laundering And How Money Laundering Works, Section: How to Prevent Money Laundering.

The activity described in the question raises several red flags for money laundering, such as large and frequent cash deposits, transfers to offshore jurisdictions, and involvement of a charitable organization that could be a front for illicit funds. The Compliance Officer should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the competent authority, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), as soon as possible, and provide all the relevant information and documentation to support the suspicion. Filing an STR is a legal obligation for financial institutions and does not require the consent or notification of the customer. The Compliance Officer should also follow the bank’s internal policies and procedures for handling such cases, which may include freezing the account, conducting further investigation, or escalating the matter to senior management.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Section 4.4: Reporting, pp. 137-139
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course2, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Lesson 4.4: Reporting
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Task 4.4: File internal and external reports, p. 18

 The customer activity that should trigger a suspicious transaction report is purchasing travelers checks (cheques) for trips to a Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCTs). This could indicate an attempt to evade currency reporting requirements, avoid sanctions or embargoes, or facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing through high-risk jurisdictions12. NCCTs are countries or territories that have been identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as having serious deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and that pose a threat to the international financial system3.

The other options are not necessarily grounds for a suspicious transaction report, although they may require further due diligence or monitoring depending on the customer profile and the nature of the transaction. For example:

• The increased activity is due to money order deposits. This could be a legitimate source of income for the customer’s export business, or it could be a way of disguising the origin or destination of the funds. The anti-money laundering specialist should verify the identity and background of the customer and the issuers of the money orders, and check for any red flags or suspicious indicators4.
• Wire transfers are coming from a Financial Action Task Force member country. This could be a normal business practice, or it could be a sign of involvement in trade-based money laundering or other illicit activities. The anti-money laundering specialist should assess the customer’s source of funds, business rationale, and market conditions, and monitor for any changes or inconsistencies.
• The client changed his address without advising the institution. This could be a simple oversight, or it could be a way of concealing the customer’s true location or identity. The anti-money laundering specialist should update the customer’s information, verify the new address, and check for any adverse media or sanctions.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 11: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-1.pdf
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 29: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 77: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 97: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-5.pdf

 a financial institution must perform a continuing review of the account for a period of 90 days. The continuing review must include an analysis of any transactions that occur in the account, as well as any changes in the customer's risk profile. The review should be updated as needed to ensure that the customer is not engaging in any suspicious activities.

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a sound KYC program should include four essential elements: customer acceptance policy, customer identification, on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts, and risk management1. Customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the financial institution (FI) is willing to accept and the criteria for doing so. Customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers and obtaining information on their activities and sources of funds. On-going monitoring of higher risk accounts involves reviewing the transactions and behavior of the customers that pose higher risks of money laundering or terrorist financing and updating their information and risk profiles. Risk management involves establishing appropriate policies, procedures, controls, and audit functions to ensure the effective implementation and oversight of the KYC program1.

References:

• 1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Bank for International Settlements1

A corporate account opened on behalf of several beneficial owners is a red flag because it may indicate an attempt to conceal the identity or source of funds of the ultimate beneficiaries1. The customer’s stated investment goal of long-term investment is not reflective of the account activity, which involves frequent and large transfers, currency exchanges, and account depletion within a short period of time. This discrepancy may suggest that the customer is using the account for money laundering or other illicit purposes2.

References: = 1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3, Lesson 4, Topic: Corporate Accounts 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3, Lesson 4, Topic: Customer Profile and Account Activity

The correct answer is B, C, and E, as these three present the highest anti-money laundering or sanctions risk and will require controls prior to launch. According to the FATF Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers1, P2P transactions pose significant challenges for AML/CFT compliance, as they may involve anonymous or pseudonymous parties, cross-border transfers, real-time settlement, and limited information on the beneficiaries. These factors increase the risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, as well as the difficulty of detecting and reporting suspicious activity. Therefore, the institution should implement appropriate controls to mitigate these risks, such as:

• Conducting enhanced due diligence on customers who use the P2P service, especially if they are located in high-risk jurisdictions or are involved in high-risk activities1.
• Implementing transaction monitoring systems that can identify and flag unusual or suspicious patterns of behavior, such as large or frequent transfers, transfers to or from sanctioned entities or countries, or transfers that do not match the customer’s profile or expected activity12.
• Applying the travel rule, which requires the originator and beneficiary VASPs (or financial institutions) to exchange and retain information on the parties involved in the transfer, such as their names, account numbers, addresses, and national identification numbers13.
• Establishing information-sharing and cooperation mechanisms with other VASPs, financial institutions, and regulators, to facilitate the exchange of relevant data and intelligence on P2P transactions and customers14.

References: 1: Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers - FATF, page 13-16, 28-29, 32-33, 40-412: AML and Compliance Solution for The P2P Industry - Sanction Scanner3: P2P Money Laundering: How to Comply - ComplyAdvantage4: 2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment - U.S. Department of the Treasury, page 17.

The anti-money laundering officer should advise the account-opening officer to verify the identity of all the partners as an initial step. This is because opening a bank account for an offshore company with multiple owners from different jurisdictions poses a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, the bank should apply enhanced due diligence measures to ensure that the offshore company and its owners are legitimate and not involved in any criminal activities. One of the key measures is to verify the identity of all the partners, not just the one who presents the power of attorney. This will help the bank to establish the beneficial ownership and control structure of the offshore company, as well as to detect any possible fraud, forgery, or coercion in the power of attorney document. The bank should also verify the authenticity and validity of the power of attorney, and the scope and purpose of the authority granted to the partner who requests the account opening.

The other options are less important or irrelevant as initial steps. Verifying the source of the deposit is also a part of the enhanced due diligence process, but it should be done after verifying the identity of the partners and the offshore company. Filing a suspicious transaction report with the appropriate Financial Intelligence Unit or the Egmont Group is a possible action that the bank may take if it detects any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing in the account opening process, but it is not an initial step. The Egmont Group is an international network of Financial Intelligence Units that facilitates information exchange and cooperation, but it is not a reporting authority.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 3: Customer Identification and Verification, 1
• ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 4: Customer Risk Assessment, 2
• ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 5: Ongoing Monitoring, 3
• Powers of attorney: opening a bank account, 4

According to the ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 215, one of the best practices for banks to prevent and detect mortgage fraud is to conduct internal investigations when there are red flags or suspicions of fraud involving bank employees. The investigation should include reviewing the employee’s loan files, interviewing the employee and other relevant parties, verifying the information and documents provided by the employee, and documenting the findings and actions taken. Filing a suspicious activity report (SAR) may be appropriate after the investigation is completed and the bank has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. Filing a police report or initiating civil litigation may also be options depending on the outcome of the investigation and the bank’s policies, but they are not the first steps to take when the bank suspects an employee of mortgage fraud.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 2151
• Mortgage Fraud: Understanding and Avoiding It2
• Mortgage Fraud: What You Need To Know3

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries that allows for the exchange of information and evidence in the investigation and enforcement of criminal laws. MLATs provide a framework for countries to assist each other with investigations, prosecutions, and other legal matters, including the exchange of information, evidence, documents, and testimony. MLATs are commonly used in investigations related to money laundering, terrorism, and other transnational crimes.

The FATF Regional Style Bodies (FSRBs) are autonomous regional organizations that help the FATF implement its global AML/CFT policy, which revolves around its 40 Recommendations, in over 200 affiliated countries1. One of the key characteristics of the FSRBs is that they emphasize regional co-operation between member countries, as stated in the High-Level Principles and Objectives approved by the FATF Plenary in October 20122. This means that the FSRBs facilitate information exchange, technical assistance, training, and mutual support among their members to enhance their AML/CFT capacities and compliance. The FSRBs also promote regional perspectives and specificities in the FATF policy-making process and foster dialogue and collaboration with other regional and international bodies2.

References:

• 1: What are the 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)? - Sygna
• 2: FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering

The primary purposes of Financial Action Task Force (FATF)-Style Regional Bodies are to promote effective implementation of FATF recommendations and to provide expertise and input in FATF policy-making. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 180)

The rules imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for legal entities and persons related to the US are:

• Nationals of the US must comply with OFAC rules, regardless of where they are located in the world. This means that US citizens, permanent residents, and entities organized under US law are subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, even if they operate or reside outside the US12.
• Any foreign corporation is also penalized if it conducts transactions with sanctioned countries under OFAC rules. This means that non-US entities that engage in trade or financial dealings with OFAC-designated countries, entities, or individuals are liable to face civil or criminal penalties, as well as secondary sanctions that could restrict their access to the US market or financial system34.

The other options are not correct, because:

• A subsidiary of a legal entity of the US, which is formally registered in a foreign country, is not exempt from OFAC rules. This means that foreign-incorporated entities that are owned or controlled by US persons or entities are also subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are specifically authorized or licensed by OFAC12.
• A foreign individual visiting the US for a short vacation is not obligated to follow OFAC rules. This means that non-US persons who are temporarily present in the US are not subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are involved in transactions that have a US nexus or violate other US laws.
• The head office of a foreign legal entity which has a branch in the US does not need to comply with OFAC rules. This means that non-US entities that have a presence or operation in the US are not subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are involved in transactions that have a US nexus or violate other US laws.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 147: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 148: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf
• ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 149: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

According to the Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, a shell bank is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated and licensed, and which is unaffiliated with a regulated financial group that is subject to effective consolidated supervision. Physical presence means meaningful mind and management located within a country. The existence simply of a local agent or low level staff does not constitute physical presence. Therefore, a shell bank meets the criteria A, B, and D, as it does not conduct business at a fixed address, does not employ one or more individuals or maintain operating records at that address, and is not subject to inspection by the banking authority that licensed it. Criterion C is not specific to shell banks, as any bank, whether shell or not, may or may not be subject to AML laws that require it to implement an AML program, depending on the jurisdiction.

References:

• Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, Section: Definitions, pp. 3-4.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), the bank should file a SAR if it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that a transaction involves funds derived from illegal activity, or is intended or conducted to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity, or to evade any BSA regulation or federal law, or has no business or apparent lawful purpose, or is not the sort in which the customer would normally be expected to engage1. The scenario described in the question meets these criteria, as the small deposits and withdrawals from a high-risk country could indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The bank should also document its decision to file or not file a SAR, and retain the supporting documentation for five years1.

The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the BSA requirements, or do not adequately address the potential risk of the activity. Blocking any further activity could alert the customer of the bank’s suspicion, and could also interfere with law enforcement investigations. Initiating an investigation into the activity could be part of the bank’s due diligence process, but it does not substitute the obligation to file a SAR if the activity is suspicious. Contacting the customer could also tip off the customer, or elicit false or misleading explanations that could hinder the bank’s assessment of the activity.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 82-83. 12345678 [9]

The board of directors has the ultimate responsibility within a bank for ensuring that the bank has a comprehensive and effective BSA/AML program and oversight framework that is reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) BSA/AML Examination Manual, the board of directors must approve the BSA/AML compliance program, which includes the BSA/AML policy, internal controls, independent testing, designated BSA/AML compliance officer, and training1. The board of directors must also provide sufficient resources, ensure qualified staff, and hold senior management accountable for implementing and adhering to the BSA/AML compliance program1.

References:

1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Board of Directors and Senior Management Oversight

Alternative remittance, also known as underground banking or informal value transfer systems, is a method of transferring money or value without using formal financial institutions or channels. It is often used by migrant workers, refugees, or people who lack access to formal banking services. However, it can also be exploited by criminals and terrorists to move funds across borders without detection or regulation. The Wolfsberg Group, a group of leading international banks that promotes best practices in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, cited alternative remittance as one of the sectors and activities that are widely used for the financing of terrorism in its Statement on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Wolfsberg Group recommended that financial institutions apply enhanced and appropriate due diligence to customers engaged in alternative remittance and report any suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities.

References:

• Wolfsberg Group (2002). Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing1
• Pieth, M. (ed.) (2002). Financing Terrorism. Springer, Dordrecht2
• ACAMS (2020). CAMS Certification Package (6th Edition)3

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the institution should develop a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. This is because the customer’s behavior and profile may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:

• Operating an import-export business, which is a common sector for trade-based money laundering, where trade transactions are used to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under-invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents1.
• Receiving funds from a jurisdiction perceived as highly corrupt, which may increase the risk of the funds being derived from bribery, embezzlement, fraud, or other predicate offences2. Transparency International is a global civil society organization that publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, which ranks countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption based on expert assessments and surveys3.
• Making frequent transfers among the accounts, which may indicate a layering technique, where funds are moved through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership of the funds4.
• Preferring to manage the accounts separately, which may indicate a lack of transparency or an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the institution.

By developing a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts, the institution can:

• Identify and verify the identity and beneficial ownership of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.
• Obtain and verify information on the nature and purpose of the business relationship and the source and destination of the funds.
• Conduct a risk assessment of the customer and the transactions based on the customer’s profile, behavior, and geographic locations.
• Apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures for higher-risk customers and transactions, such as obtaining additional information, documentation, or approval, or conducting more frequent or in-depth reviews.
• Detect and report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

The other three options are incorrect because:

• File a suspicious transaction report is not the best answer, as it is a reactive measure that should be taken after the institution has identified or suspected money laundering or terrorist financing activity, not before. The institution should first conduct due diligence and monitoring of the customer and the transactions, and then file a report if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the activity is suspicious or unusual.
• Diminish the importance of the subjective Transparency International rating is not the best answer, as it is a complacent and irresponsible attitude that may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, reputational, or operational risks. The Transparency International rating is not subjective, but based on credible sources and methodologies, and it is widely used as a reference by governments, businesses, civil society, and the public to assess the level of corruption in different countries3. The institution should not ignore or downplay the rating, but rather use it as one of the factors to evaluate the risk of the customer and the transactions.
• Conduct a trade-price manipulation analysis is not the best answer, as it is a specific and technical measure that may not be sufficient or appropriate to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. A trade-price manipulation analysis is a method of detecting trade-based money laundering by comparing the prices of goods or services in a transaction with the market prices or other benchmarks, and identifying any significant discrepancies or anomalies. However, this measure may not be feasible or effective if the institution does not have access to reliable and comparable data, or if the goods or services are not standardized or homogeneous. Moreover, this measure may not address other aspects of the risk, such as the identity, ownership, or behavior of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 108 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 107 3: Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 3 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 104 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 109

The primary international authoritative body that designates sanctions is the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. The UN sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states and aim to maintain or restore international peace and security. The UN sanctions can target individuals, entities, groups, sectors, or countries, and can include measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, trade restrictions, or diplomatic isolation. The UN sanctions are implemented and enforced by the member states, with the assistance of the UN Secretariat and other specialized agencies. The UN sanctions are periodically reviewed and adjusted by the Security Council, based on the reports of the sanctions committees and expert panels.

References:

• 1: UN Sanctions1
• 2: UN Charter, Chapter VII2
• 3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the best practices for conducting an internal investigation is to request formal company authorization to conduct the investigation. Such authorization should be granted, if possible, by the board of directors or audit committee, as this will help to establish the independence and legitimacy of the investigation, as well as the protection of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine1. The other options are incorrect because:

• B. Refusing to provide any records or documents to law enforcement may be seen as obstructing justice or violating regulatory obligations, and may also result in the loss of the privilege or the imposition of sanctions or penalties23.
• C. Letting the bank hire any and all contract investigators may compromise the quality and integrity of the investigation, as well as the protection of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as the investigators may not be properly supervised or instructed by legal counsel, or may not be covered by the Kovel doctrine45.
• D. Not marking files or documents with privileged and confidential: attorney-client privilege and/or work-product may undermine the claim of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as it may indicate that the materials were not prepared for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or in anticipation of litigation, or that they were not intended to be kept confidential67.

References:

• 1: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150
• 2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 151
• 3: Perkins Coie, Protecting Internal Investigation Materials From Disclosure, Updates, August 10, 2020
• 4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150
• 5: Eversheds Sutherland, Legal privilege of corporate internal investigations under US law - 2019 caselaw update, JDSupra, December 20, 2019
• 6: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150
• 7: Norton Rose Fulbright, Internal investigations: when does privilege apply?, Global law firm, September 11, 2018

According to the Wolfsberg Group, a correspondent bank should evaluate the distribution of downstream correspondents and identify any direct or indirect issues when it permits “nested” relationships, which are arrangements where a respondent bank provides correspondent banking services to other banks that are not customers of the correspondent bank. This step is important to understand the types of financial institutions to whom the services are being offered and the potential risks they pose. The correspondent bank should also obtain information on the nature and extent of the nested activity, the due diligence performed by the respondent bank on the nested banks, and the controls and monitoring in place to prevent financial crime.

References:

• Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 20221, Section 4.5: Nested Relationships
• Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services2, Section 3.2.2: Nested Correspondent Banking Relationships

OFAC-issued regulations apply to all U.S. persons, including U.S. banks, bank holding companies, and non-bank subsidiaries, regardless of where they are located. This means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks and U.S. branches of a foreign bank are also subject to OFAC compliance. However, intermediaries transacting with U.S. banks, foreign banks with U.S. customers, and foreign import-export companies are not necessarily subject to OFAC regulations, unless they are involved in transactions that involve U.S. jurisdiction or U.S. persons.

References:

• Basic Information on OFAC and Sanctions
• OFAC Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions
• Office of Foreign Assets Control — Overview

Wire stripping is the process of removing or altering the identifying information associated with a wire transfer to make it difficult to trace the origin or destination of the funds. This technique is commonly used in money laundering schemes to conceal the illicit source of funds and avoid detection by authorities or sanctions screening systems. In this case, the bank’s operations team deliberately removed the reference to the sanctioned company from the wire transfer message, thus violating the FinCEN “Travel Rule” and facilitating the evasion of sanctions.

References:

• Wire Stripping in Anti Money Laundering Parlance
• Wire Transfer Red Flags: Understanding Money Laundering and Fraud Risks
• Wire Stripping

Shell companies are business entities that exist only on paper, with no physical presence, no employees, and no operations. They are often used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating mergers and acquisitions, protecting assets, or managing investments. However, they are also frequently exploited for illegal activities, such as tax evasion and money laundering, due to their ability to obscure ownership and financial transactions12. Money launderers can use shell companies to disguise the origin of illicit funds, evade sanctions, and avoid the anti-money laundering (AML) measures that financial institutions use to detect suspicious activity23. The process typically involves setting up a shell company in a jurisdiction known for strict privacy laws, such as a tax haven, and then using it to move and hide illicit funds while hiding the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries13.

In this scenario, the fact that the company has been a client for many years does not rule out the possibility of money laundering. The company could have changed its ownership, activities, or risk profile over time, or it could have been involved in money laundering all along without being detected. The fact that the company has added several new subsidiaries that are recently created shell companies is a red flag that indicates potential money laundering. The company could be using the shell companies to hide the source and destination of its funds, or to conceal the identity of its beneficial owners. The institution should perform enhanced due diligence on the company and its subsidiaries, and report any suspicious transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

References:

• How Shell Companies Are Used in Money Laundering: A Detailed Guide
• Shell Companies and Money Laundering
• The Role of Shell Companies in Money Laundering

A comprehensive risk analysis is the first and most important step in developing an effective anti-money laundering program. A risk analysis helps a financial institution identify and assess its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, based on its products, services, customers, geographic locations, and other factors. A risk analysis also enables a financial institution to tailor its policies, procedures, controls, and training to mitigate the specific risks it faces. A risk analysis should be conducted periodically and updated as necessary to reflect changes in the institution’s risk profile.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.1: Risk-Based Approach, p. 29-30
• ACAMS Risk Assessment, What is Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment?
• How to Conduct an AML Risk Assessment - Assess Key Risk Drivers

The Egmont Group is a global network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that aims to enhance the capabilities and cooperation of its members in combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. The Egmont Group supports its FIU members by helping them to expand and systematize the exchange of financial intelligence and information, improve expertise and capabilities of personnel, and enable secure communication with one another12. The Egmont Group does not issue due diligence models for financial institutions, as this is the responsibility of national regulators and standard-setting bodies. The Egmont Group does not issue strategic products for law enforcement agencies and FIUs, as this is the role of other international organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The Egmont Group does not expand the ability of FIUs to enforce laws and exchange information globally, as this depends on the legal and operational frameworks of each FIU and the bilateral or multilateral agreements they have with other FIUs.

References:

• Egmont Group
• Working Groups - Egmont Group
• Overview of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units
• The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units | FinCEN.gov
• Egmont Group - Qatar Financial Information Unit

The USA PATRIOT Act is a comprehensive legislation that was enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and aimed to strengthen the US government’s ability to prevent, detect, and prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing. Among its many provisions, the USA PATRIOT Act contains several sections that have extraterritorial reach, meaning that they apply to foreign entities or activities that have a nexus with the US. Three of these sections are:

• Section 319(b), which allows for the US Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a subpoena or other legal order to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the US, requiring the production of records relating to such account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the US12. This section also allows foreign banks to voluntarily designate a registered agent in the US to accept service of such subpoenas or orders12.
• Section 313, which prohibits US financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group34. This section also requires US financial institutions to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts with foreign banks are not being used to provide banking services indirectly to foreign shell banks34.
• Section 311, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to designate foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, classes of transactions, or types of accounts as being of “primary money laundering concern” and to impose special measures to address such concerns . These special measures may include requiring US financial institutions to obtain and retain information on the beneficial owners of foreign accounts, prohibiting or imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions, or requiring US financial institutions to identify the customers of their foreign correspondent account holders . The Secretary of the Treasury may also order a US financial institution to terminate a correspondent account within 10 days if the foreign bank fails to comply with a subpoena or other request for information under Section 319(b) .

References:

• 1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)
• 2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121
• 3: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 313
• 4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 120
• : USA PATRIOT Act, Section 311
• : ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 119

Economic sanctions are a tool that governments and multi-national bodies can use to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by imposing restrictions on trade, financial transactions, travel, or other activities with targeted countries, entities, or individuals that are involved or suspected of being involved in WMD programs. Economic sanctions aim to disrupt the supply chains, funding sources, and incentives for developing or acquiring WMDs, as well as to deter and punish any violations of international norms and obligations regarding WMDs. Economic sanctions can be imposed unilaterally by a country or multilaterally by a group of countries or an international organization, such as the United Nations, the European Union, or the Financial Action Task Force.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Preventing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lesson 4.2: Sanctions1
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Preventing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Section 4.2: Sanctions2

High-risk: The risks here are significant, but are not necessarily prohibited. To mitigate the heightened risk presented, the financial institution should apply more stringent controls to reduce the ML/FT risk, such as conducting enhanced due diligence and more rigorous transaction monitoring. Countries that maintain a reputation for corruption or drug trafficking are generally considered high-risk. High-risk customers may include politically exposed persons (PEPs) or certain types of money services businesses or cash-intensive businesses; high-risk products and services may include correspondent banking and private banking.

 New business products should be evaluated for AML concerns before they are launched into the market. This is because new products may introduce new risks or vulnerabilities that could be exploited by money launderers or terrorist financiers. By conducting a pre-launch assessment, a financial institution can identify and mitigate these risks, design appropriate controls and procedures, and ensure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. A pre-launch assessment can also help a financial institution to align its AML strategy with its business objectives, and avoid potential reputational damage or regulatory sanctions.

References:

• 9 Things to Consider When Evaluating an AML Solution
• CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 38.

This potential action is authorized by Section 319 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which allows the U.S. government to seize funds from a foreign bank’s correspondent account in the U.S. if the foreign bank refuses to cooperate with a request for records relating to an investigation of money laundering or terrorist financing. The U.S. government can seize an amount equal to the funds in the account of the target of the investigation, regardless of whether those funds are actually in the correspondent account. In this case, the U.S. government can seize $1 million from Bank A’s correspondent account in the U.S. because Bank A holds $1 million in the account of the WTS, which is the target of the forfeiture action.

The other potential actions are not authorized by the USA PATRIOT ACT or other U.S. laws. The U.S. government cannot seize Bank A’s entire $5 million correspondent account in the U.S. because that would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account and would violate the principle of proportionality. The U.S. government cannot seize the WTS’s $1 million account at the non-U.S. branch of Bank A because that would require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction where the branch is located, which may not be forthcoming. The U.S. government cannot seize $5 million from the non-U.S. branch of Bank A where the WTS’s account is located because that would also require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction and would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: International Standards and Global Initiatives, pp. 67-68
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 54-55
• How Does the Patriot Act Affect Criminal Investigations? | Nolo, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts
• The USA PATRIOT Act at 20: Sneak and Peek Searches - CRS Reports, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts

The following were the key features of the Second Directive:

• It extended the scope of the First Directive beyond drug-related crimes. The definition of “criminal activity” was expanded to cover not just drug trafficking, but all serious crimes, including corruption and fraud against the financial interests of the European community.

• It explicitly brought bureaux de change and money remittance offices under AML coverage.

• It clarified that knowledge of criminal conduct can be inferred from objective factual circumstances.

A compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement inquiry as much as possible, but also ensure that the request is valid, lawful, and does not violate any confidentiality or privacy obligations. Therefore, the compliance officer should collaborate with the FI’s designated department, such as the legal counsel, the senior management, or the board of directors, to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the request12. The compliance officer should also ensure that all communication, written and oral, is funneled through a centralized place, and that the FI maintains a record of the request and the response12.

References:

• 1: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts, FinCEN, 2014
• 2: Best Practices for Compliance and Enforcement-Related Information Requests, EPA, 2018

purchasing a low volume of chips with cash and turning them in for a casino check is a common technique of money laundering in casinos. This method allows the launderer to convert “dirty” money into physical casino chips, which are then played with for a short while, and then cashed out as “clean” money in the form of a check. This way, the launderer can avoid the reporting requirements and the traceability of cash transactions.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1
• Understanding Money Laundering in Casinos | ComplyAdvantage2
• Casino Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators - Alessa3

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets the global standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF). The FATF also monitors the compliance and implementation of its recommendations by its members and other jurisdictions. To enhance its global reach and effectiveness, the FATF works with nine FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) that cover different regions of the world. These FSRBs have similar objectives and functions as the FATF, but they also take into account the specific characteristics and challenges of their regions. Two ways that FSRBs influence AML/CTF standards within their respective regions are:

• They issue typologies specific to their geographical region. Typologies are reports or studies that analyze the methods, trends, and patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing in a particular sector, industry, or region. FSRBs produce typologies that reflect the regional context and risks of their members and provide guidance and best practices to address them. For example, the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) has issued typologies on trade-based money laundering, wildlife trafficking, and virtual assets in the Asia-Pacific region12.
• They administer mutual evaluations of participating members. Mutual evaluations are peer reviews that assess the level of compliance and effectiveness of a country’s AML/CTF system against the FATF standards. FSRBs conduct mutual evaluations of their members and publish the results and recommendations in detailed reports. These reports help identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CTF regime and provide a basis for follow-up actions and technical assistance. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) has conducted mutual evaluations of its members such as Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago34.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 27
• APG website, section on Typologies
• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 28
• CFATF website, section on Mutual Evaluations

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, individuals who violate anti-money laundering laws can face severe consequences, such as imprisonment, fines, asset forfeiture, and sanctions. These penalties can apply not only to the perpetrators of money laundering, but also to the employees, managers, directors, and officers of financial institutions or other entities that fail to comply with their anti-money laundering obligations. Therefore, violations of anti-money laundering laws can pose a significant risk to individuals, both personally and professionally.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 9
• ACAMS website, section on CAMS certification
• Money Laundering website, article on “The Consequences of Non-Compliance with Anti-Money Laundering Laws”

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement request to keep an account open that may be associated with suspicious or criminal activity, it should take the following two steps:

• Maintain account records for at least five years after the request expires. This is to ensure that the financial institution can provide evidence of its compliance with the law enforcement request and the applicable anti-money laundering regulations. The five-year retention period is based on the international standard set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and adopted by many jurisdictions12.
• Ask for a written request from the law enforcement agency that defines the duration. This is to protect the financial institution from potential liability and to clarify the scope and purpose of the law enforcement request. The written request should specify the time period for which the account should remain open, the reason for the request, the contact information of the law enforcement officer, and the legal authority for the request34.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 57
• FATF Recommendation 11, paragraph 2
• Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 58
• Money Laundering website, article on “Law Enforcement Requests to Keep Accounts Open”

https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/requests-law-enforcement-financial-institutions-maintain

 A free-look provision is a period of time, typically 10 to 30 days, in which a new life insurance policy owner can terminate the policy and have their premium refunded1. This can help criminals to launder money by purchasing a policy with illicit funds and then cancelling it within the free-look period to receive a clean check from the insurance company2. This way, they can disguise the source and origin of their funds and avoid any penalties or charges that would otherwise apply to early termination of the policy.

References:

• 1: Investopedia, What Is a Free Look Period and How Does It Work?
• 2: FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements for Insurance Companies

According to the Basel Committee’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks paper, one of the essential elements of a sound KYC programme is customer identification. This includes obtaining sufficient information to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, the source of funds, and the beneficial ownership and control structure of the customer1. For corporate business entities, this means that a bank needs to have an understanding of the structure of the company, such as its legal form, its ownership, its directors, its line of business, and its geographical locations2. This will help the bank to assess the risk profile of the customer, to verify its identity and legitimacy, and to monitor its transactions for any suspicious activities.

References:

1: Customer due diligence for banks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001, Section III.2 2: General Guide to Account Opening and Customer Identification, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, February 2003, Section 2.2.1

an employee who avoids taking periodic vacations despite having accrued vacation time may be trying to conceal fraudulent or illegal activities that would be exposed in their absence. This is a common red flag for internal fraud and money laundering, as it indicates a lack of segregation of duties, internal controls, and oversight. Employees who engage in such behavior may also exhibit other signs of stress, defensiveness, or secrecy.

References:

• Learn about red flags for internal fraud, section “An employee may be a higher internal fraud risk when a combination of the following red flags are present”, bullet point 1: “Unwilling to share duties or take leave.”
• Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, section “Employee Red Flags”, bullet point 1: “Avoiding taking holidays or time off work.”
• Top 10 AML Red Flags: Warning Signs and Financial Risks, section “AML Red Flags Categories”, sub-section “Employee Red Flags”, bullet point 1: “Avoiding taking vacations or sick leaves.”

By delivering the same annual refresher training to all employees, the compliance officer could miss the opportunity to update the staff on any new trends, developments, or risks that have emerged in the anti-money laundering field. For example, new typologies, indicators, technologies, or best practices could be relevant for the staff to be aware of and apply in their daily work. Moreover, the compliance officer could also miss the chance to share any links to enforcement actions identifying violations in other financial institutions that could serve as lessons learned or case studies for the staff to avoid similar mistakes or gaps in their compliance program.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.4: Training1
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.4: Training2

The line of business is responsible for creating, implementing and maintaining policies and procedures, as well as communicating these to all personnel. It must also establish processes for screening employees to ensure high ethical and professional standards and deliver appropriate training on AML policies and procedures based on roles and functions performed so employees aware of their responsibilities. To facilitate this, employees should be trained as soon as possible after being hired, with refresher training as appropriate.

account opening documents and account statements are examples of supporting documentation that can help the law enforcement agency to verify the identity, profile, and activity of the customer involved in the suspicious transaction. These documents can provide useful information such as the customer’s name, address, date of birth, identification number, occupation, source of funds, transaction history, and beneficiaries. These documents can also help to establish the baseline of normal and expected activity for the customer, and to identify any deviations or anomalies that may indicate money laundering, fraud, or other criminal activities.

References:

• Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “What Constitutes Supporting Documentation”, paragraph 2: “Supporting documentation may include, for example, transaction records, new account information, tape recordings, e-mail messages, and correspondence.”
• Documentation Requirements: Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “SARs Documentation Requirements”, paragraph 2: “Keep all documents with evidence of the background, the purpose of the transactions, the trigger, the investigation carried out, and all findings and conclusions.”
• BSA/AML Manual, section “Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program - BSA Compliance Officer”, paragraph 3: “The BSA compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is implemented effectively, including timely updates in response to changes in regulations or business activities, and for managing all aspects of the BSA/AML compliance program. The BSA compliance officer is also responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is communicated to all personnel and that adequate training is provided to appropriate personnel.”

Wash trading is the term for trading through multiple accounts, where an individual generates offsetting profits and losses and transfers of positions through accounts that do not appear to be commonly controlled. Wash trading is a form of market manipulation that creates artificial trading activity and volume, and may be used to evade taxes, inflate prices, or launder money. Wash trading can also involve the use of third parties or intermediaries to conceal the true identity and source of funds of the trader.

References: = The main references for this question are the following sources:

• The document titled “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Typologies and Trends in Canadian Securities Dealers” published by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) in December 2019. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “Wash trading is a form of market manipulation where an individual simultaneously sells and buys the same financial instruments to create misleading, artificial activity in the marketplace. Wash trading is illegal under securities law because it misleads investors and regulators about the true supply and demand of the securities involved. Wash trading can also be used to evade taxes, inflate prices, or launder money.”
• The document titled “Market Manipulation” published by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “Wash sales are a form of market manipulation in which an investor simultaneously sells and buys the same security to create misleading, artificial activity in the marketplace. Wash sales are illegal under Section 9(a)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wash sales can be used to manipulate the price of a security, evade taxes, or launder money.”

 Reciprocity is one of the high-level principles that govern the relationship between the FATF and the FSRBs. It means that both the FATF and the FSRBs should respect and acknowledge each other’s work, such as standard setting, mutual evaluations, and follow-up processes. Reciprocity also implies that the FATF and the FSRBs should have similar mechanisms or practices for ensuring effective participation of their members in their activities.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “High-Level Principles and Objectives for FATF and FATF-style regional bodies” published by the FATF in February 2019. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the FSRBs and their roles on the FATF website and the Sygna blog.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, PEPs are individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state-owned corporations, or important political party officials1. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering and corruption due to their position and influence2. Therefore, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures when dealing with PEPs as customers3. This includes:

• Conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship to detect and report any suspicious transactions or activities4. This may involve more frequent reviews, higher-level approvals, or increased documentation of the transactions and the rationale behind them.
• Taking adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the business relationship or occasional transaction. This may involve verifying the origin, legitimacy, and purpose of the funds, as well as the economic activities and assets of the PEP.

The other two options are incorrect because:

• Expedite due diligence when a PEP is pre-approved by a member of senior management is not a recommended course of action, as it may compromise the quality and integrity of the due diligence process. Pre-approval by senior management does not exempt the financial institution from conducting thorough and timely due diligence on the PEP and the business relationship.
• Obtain appropriate senior management approval for establishing a business relationship with a PEP from a high risk country is a necessary but not sufficient course of action, as it does not address the ongoing monitoring and source of funds aspects of the PEP risk management. Senior management approval is required for establishing or continuing a business relationship with a PEP, regardless of the country of origin or residence of the PEP.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 83 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 84 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 85 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88

According to the risk-based approach, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring to higher-risk clients, and take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. If the client exceeds the criteria of an acceptable risk model created by the institution, the institution should communicate the issues to the client and request remedial actions, such as providing additional information, documentation, or evidence of compliance. If the client does not cooperate or comply with the institution’s requirements, the institution should consider terminating the relationship with the client, as the risk may outweigh the benefits of continuing the business relationship.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments, pp. 51-521
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Customer Due Diligence, pp. 97-981
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Risk Assessments, Lesson 2.3: Risk-Based Approach2
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Customer Due Diligence, Lesson 4.3: Enhanced Due Diligence

Organized crime groups often use front companies to disguise the origin and destination of their illicit funds, and to integrate them into the legitimate economy. Front companies are businesses that appear to be engaged in lawful activities, but are actually controlled by criminals for money laundering purposes.

One reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to gain control over an entire sector of the economy, such as construction, transportation, or gambling. By using multiple front companies, they can create a network of interrelated businesses that can manipulate prices, evade taxes, and influence public contracts. This can give them a competitive advantage over legitimate businesses, and allow them to launder large amounts of money through seemingly legitimate transactions.

Another reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to comingle their illicit funds with those of legal businesses. By using the bank accounts of front companies, they can deposit cash from criminal activities along with the revenues from legitimate operations, making it harder to trace the source of the funds. They can also transfer funds between different front companies, or use them to pay for goods and services, creating layers of transactions that obscure the money trail.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, page 43
• A Guide to the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Part 2, page 9
• Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, Chapter 2, page 29

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 191, “Reloadable open-loop prepaid cards are a high-risk product for money laundering because they can be used to store and move large amounts of funds anonymously. They can also be used to access cash at ATMs or through cash-back transactions at merchants.” Therefore, option B is a red flag that may indicate money laundering, as a non-bank customer who regularly loads large amounts of cash onto several prepaid cards may be trying to avoid identification, verification, or transaction reporting requirements.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide, page 1911

An enterprise-wide compliance culture is a centralized, coordinated approach to ethics and compliance program design and assessment that cuts across multiple business units within an organization1. One key aspect of promoting such a culture is that the relevant information should be shared throughout the organization, so that all employees are aware of the compliance risks, policies, procedures, and expectations, and can act accordingly2. Sharing information also facilitates collaboration, communication, and feedback among different functions and levels of the organization, and helps identify and address any gaps or issues in the compliance program3. By contrast, the other options are not conducive to an enterprise-wide compliance culture, as they either create silos, conflicts, or inefficiencies in the compliance function.

References:

• 1: Enterprise Compliance Risk Management Services | Deloitte US
• 2: Enterprise Risk Management and Risk Culture - McKinsey & Company
• 3: FRB: Speech, Bies–Enterprise-wide Compliance Programs–February 4, 2004

 MLROs are responsible for implementing and enforcing an appropriate risk-based approach for their firm, ensuring compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, and reporting any suspicious activities to the authorities. If they fail to discharge their duties, they may face personal liability and civil or criminal sanctions. MLROs are not the only individuals that can be held responsible for AML program deficiencies, as other senior managers, directors, or partners may also be liable depending on their role and involvement. However, MLROs are often the primary focus of enforcement actions due to their specific responsibilities and obligations. MLROs cannot avoid liability by agreeing to a civil penalty, as this does not absolve them from their legal duties or potential criminal prosecution. Banks can also be found liable for AML program deficiencies and face fines, penalties, or other sanctions.

References:

• Technical factsheet The role of the money laundering reporting officer
• Consequences of not complying | AUSTRAC
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer: The Role Of MLRO
• FinCEN Penalizes U.S. Bank Official for Corporate Anti-Money Laundering Failures

When implementing a risk-based approach related to casinos, the risks related to the customer as an individual are mainly based on the customer’s profile, behaviour, source of funds, and geographic location. Among the options given, B and D are the most relevant factors that could indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

Casual customers are those who do not have a regular or established relationship with the casino, and who may visit the casino only once or occasionally. They may not provide sufficient or reliable identification information, or may use false or stolen identities. They may also engage in suspicious transactions, such as large cash purchases of chips, minimal or no gaming activity, or frequent transfers of chips between customers. Casual customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they are harder to verify, monitor, and trace by the casino operators.

Customer from a high-risk country is a customer who resides in, or has links to, a country that is subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures, or that is identified by credible sources as having significant levels of corruption, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. Such customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they may be involved in, or connected to, criminal or terrorist activities, or may be using funds that are derived from or intended for such activities.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Casinos” published by the FATF in October 2008. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the risk-based approach and the customer risks for casinos on the Gambling Commission website and the Exam Answer website.

 According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a global network of FIUs that promotes information exchange and cooperation, FIUs making requests to another FIU should disclose the reason and purpose for the request, and provide feedback on how the information was used12. These actions are intended to enhance mutual trust, transparency, and accountability between FIUs, and to facilitate the effective use of financial intelligence and information for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes12. FIUs making requests should also respect the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the FIU receiving the request, and avoid imposing unreasonable or unduly restrictive conditions12.

FIUs making requests should not send the same request to all FIUs, as this would be inefficient, unnecessary, and potentially harmful. FIUs should only send requests to FIUs that are relevant and competent to provide the information they need, based on the nature and scope of the case12. Sending the same request to all FIUs could overload the system, create duplication, and compromise the security and confidentiality of the information12. FIUs making requests should also make best efforts to provide complete and factual information, but this is not an action they should take when submitting a request, but rather when responding to a request from another FIU12.

References:

• Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Operational Guidance for FIU Activities and the Exchange of Information
• Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

 According to the AML Directive of the EU, obliged entities, such as banks and other financial institutions, are required to apply enhanced vigilance in business relationships and transactions involving high-risk third countries, which are those identified by the Commission as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regimes1. The types of enhanced vigilance requirements are basically extra checks and control measures which are defined in article 18a of the Directive1. However, these requirements are not exhaustive, and obliged entities should also implement additional mitigating measures that are complementary to the enhanced customer due diligence procedures, in accordance with a risk based approach1. This means that obliged entities should assess the level of risk posed by each customer, product, service, transaction, or delivery channel, and apply appropriate measures to mitigate those risks2. The additional mitigating measures may include, for example, obtaining additional information on the customer and the beneficial owner, applying additional elements of enhanced monitoring, increasing the frequency and intensity of transaction testing, or requiring the first payment to be carried out through an account in the customer’s name with a bank subject to similar customer due diligence standards1.

References:

• 1: Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (Text with EEA relevance)
• 2: Guidance on Risk Factors, EBA, 2021

 A key reason why a FI conducts an enterprise-wide AML risk assessment is to assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks and ensure there are adequate controls to mitigate those risks. An enterprise-wide AML risk assessment allows the FI to identify and appropriately manage the ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks within its banking operations. It also helps the FI to establish global AML control standards and determine the effectiveness of its AML risk management program, including internal preventive and detective controls. By understanding its risk profile, the FI can better apply appropriate risk management processes to the BSA/AML compliance program to mitigate and manage risk and comply with BSA regulatory requirements. The BSA/AML risk assessment should provide a comprehensive analysis of the FI’s ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks, and should be documented in writing and communicated to all relevant stakeholders.

References:

• 1: Enterprise Wide AML, CTF, Sanctions Risk Assessment (EWRA … - Eloquens2
• 3: BSA/AML Risk Assessment - FFIEC BSA/AML3
• 2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination2

A money laundering risk assessment is a crucial component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program. It involves identifying, assessing, and understanding the specific risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing that the institution may face. A risk assessment helps the institution to design and implement appropriate controls, policies, procedures, and training to mitigate the risks. A risk assessment should be updated regularly and whenever there are significant changes in the institution’s business activities, products, services, customers, or geographic locations. In this scenario, the financial institution has experienced significant deficiencies in its AML program during a recent regulatory examination. The deficiencies were primarily attributed to the lack of oversight by the institution’s leadership in implementing adequate controls over the new products and services that were added as part of the institution’s aggressive growth strategy. To correct these weaknesses in the AML program, the leadership should first address the area of international control known as “Money laundering risk assessment” (Option C). By conducting a new and comprehensive risk assessment, the leadership can identify the potential vulnerabilities and gaps in the AML program that may arise from the new products and services. The risk assessment can also help the leadership to prioritize the actions and resources needed to address the deficiencies and enhance the AML program. Once the risk assessment is completed, the leadership can then work on updating the AML policy, providing adequate training, and ensuring sufficient compliance staff to implement and monitor the controls.

References:

• 1, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments
• 2, Section 2: Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program
• 3, Question 145

one of the key roles of FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) is to support the system of mutual evaluation, which is a peer review process that assesses the level of compliance and effectiveness of each member country’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) regime12. FSRBs conduct mutual evaluations in accordance with the FATF’s methodology and standards, and share the results and recommendations with the FATF and other FSRBs3. Mutual evaluations help identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CFT system, and provide a basis for technical assistance and follow-up actions4.

References:

• What are the 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)? - Sygna1
• FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering2
• The Role of FATF Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) in Combating … - IDMerit3
• 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - fineksus.com4

The junior account manager should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Country A, as he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the customer is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. The customer’s attempt to deposit a large sum of cash, followed by a series of smaller wire transfers from a high-risk jurisdiction, indicates a possible case of structuring or smurfing, which are techniques used by criminals to avoid detection and reporting thresholds. The junior account manager should not close the account, as this could alert the customer and disrupt the investigation by the FIU or law enforcement. The junior account manager should also not notify the anti-money laundering specialist of his bank, as this could create a conflict of interest or breach of confidentiality, unless the bank’s policy requires such notification. The junior account manager should also not offer the customer a more secure method of depositing, as this could be seen as facilitating or condoning the customer’s illicit activities, or exposing the bank to legal or reputational risks.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide, pages 97-98, 103-104, 107-108.
• CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 272.

"The decision of whether or not to file a suspicious transaction report (also known as a suspicious activity report or SAR in the United States) often involves weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors arising from the research conducted during the investigative process. Financial institutions should draft procedures that document the factors to consider when determining whether a suspicious transaction report (STR) is appropriate."

According to Section 313 of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from maintaining correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group. Therefore, a non-U.S. bank must provide the name and address of all shell banks that it maintains accounts for, if any, to its U.S. correspondent. This is to ensure that the U.S. financial institution does not indirectly provide services to shell banks, which pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

According to Section 319 (b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions that provide a correspondent account to a foreign bank must maintain records of the owners of the foreign bank and the name and address of a U.S. person who is authorized to receive service of legal process for records regarding the correspondent account. This is to facilitate the access of U.S. law enforcement authorities to information related to the correspondent account in case of an investigation or a subpoena.

The other two options, B and C, are not required by the USA PATRIOT Act, although they may be part of the due diligence or enhanced due diligence procedures that U.S. financial institutions apply to their foreign correspondent accounts, as per Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

References:

• USA PATRIOT Act
• FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
• US PATRIOT ACT
• CAMS Exam: USA PATRIOT Act Requirements for Opening a Correspondent Account

Option A indicates potential money laundering activity by a lawyer, as it involves the use of a trust account to receive and transfer funds from unknown sources in high risk jurisdictions, without any apparent legitimate purpose or explanation. This could be a sign of layering, where the money launderer attempts to conceal the origin and ownership of the illicit funds by moving them through multiple accounts and jurisdictions. Option B does not necessarily indicate money laundering, as the source of the funds is a reputable entity and the transfer could be explained by a legitimate transaction or service. Option C does not necessarily indicate money laundering, as the bank draft could be a payment for a legal service or a settlement between parties. Option D does not necessarily indicate money laundering, as the cash deposit could be a fee for a legal service or a donation, and the amount could be below the reporting threshold to avoid unnecessary paperwork or scrutiny.

References: =

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4

 Option B is closest to the definition of money laundering provided by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and Other Protocols, which states that money laundering is “the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is the proceeds of crime, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of helping any person who is involved in the commission of the predicate offence to evade the legal consequences of his or her action”. In this scenario, the person is knowingly financing a resort development with the proceeds of arms trafficking, which is a crime, and thus concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property.

References: =

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto

'https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/wolfsberg-standards/8.%20Wolfsberg-Correspondent-Banking-Principles-2014.pdf - page 6 Monitoring and Reporting of Suspicious Activities The institution shall implement bank-wide policies and procedures to detect and investigate unusual or suspicious activity and report any such activity as required by applicable law. These will include guidance on what is considered to be unusual or suspicious and give examples thereof. The policies and procedures shall include appropriate monitoring of the Correspondent Bank’s activity, incorporating due diligence results such as customer risk rating and other factors considered meaningful in the assessment of transaction activity risk. In turn, the results of suspicious activity monitoring shall be factored into the periodic review of the client’s file, particularly when the results of transaction monitoring indicate elevated risk levels.

 The correct answer is B, as a customer acceptance policy is an essential element of KYC standards according to the Basel Committee’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks paper1. A customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the bank is willing to accept, and the conditions and limitations that apply to such relationships. A customer acceptance policy helps the bank to avoid customers who are likely to pose a higher than average risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, or who are not willing to provide sufficient information for identification and verification purposes1.

References: 1: Customer due diligence for banks - Bank for International Settlements, page 9.

Money laundering and terrorist financing are both forms of financial crime that involve the movement of illicit funds. However, they differ in the source and purpose of the funds. Money laundering is the process of disguising the origin, ownership, or destination of funds that are derived from illegal activities, such as drug trafficking, fraud, or tax evasion. Terrorist financing is the provision or collection of funds, by legitimate or illegitimate means, for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should consider the following factors in developing a compliance program:

• Related practices are used to conceal the nature of the funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use similar methods to hide the true identity, source, or destination of the funds, such as using shell companies, front organizations, complex transactions, cash couriers, or cryptoassets. A compliance program should include measures to identify and verify the customers, beneficial owners, and counterparties involved in the transactions, as well as to monitor and report any suspicious or unusual activities.
• Similar techniques are used to move funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use the same stages of placement, layering, and integration to move funds through the financial system. Placement is the introduction of illicit funds into the legitimate financial system, such as by depositing cash, purchasing assets, or transferring funds electronically. Layering is the separation of the funds from their source, such as by using multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or intermediaries. Integration is the re-entry of the funds into the legitimate economy, such as by investing in businesses, real estate, or securities. A compliance program should include measures to detect and prevent the movement of illicit funds through the financial system, such as by applying risk-based due diligence, record-keeping, and transaction limits.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)

 The integration stage of money laundering is where the illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate financial system, making them appear as lawful income or assets. This may include using multiple accounts, transferring funds between different banks or jurisdictions, and engaging in various financial activities to legitimize the illicit funds. The integration stage aims to make the illicit funds appear legitimate and indistinguishable from lawful funds within the financial system1.

Option C is an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it involves moving the illicit funds from one bank account to another, creating a complex trail of transactions that obscures the origin and ownership of the funds. This technique is also known as wire transfer laundering or electronic funds transfer laundering2.

Option A is an example of the placement stage of money laundering, as it involves depositing the illicit funds into the financial system for the first time, using a front company as a cover for the illegal source of the funds. A front company is a legitimate business that is used to conceal or facilitate illicit activity.

Option B is an example of the layering stage of money laundering, as it involves converting the illicit cash into other forms of value that are less conspicuous and easier to move, such as negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments are documents that promise payment to a specified person or the bearer, such as checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks.

Option D is not an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it does not involve any financial transactions or accounts. It is rather an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving the purchase of goods or services, such as a luxury vehicle, with the illicit funds that had previously been deposited and layered through the financial system.

References:

• 1: Integration Stage of Money Laundering: Bank or Deposit-Taking Institution
• 2: Process of Money Laundering: Placement, Layering, Integration - Tutorial
• : ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 32
• : ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 34
• : The Three Stages Of Money Laundering And How Money Laundering Works

Wire stripping is a technique used by money launderers to remove or alter information that identifies the originator or beneficiary of a wire transfer, in order to avoid detection or tracing. To detect wire stripping, a bank employee should compare the wire transaction as it enters and after it leaves the bank, and look for any discrepancies or missing information in the fields related to the originator or beneficiary. The employee should also check for suspicious phrases usually used to conceal originator or beneficiary identity, such as “for further credit”, “in favor of”, “on behalf of”, or “as instructed”.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.21
• CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.31
• ACAMS Chapter 3 Exam Questions, Question 792
• FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership, Section 3.23

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking, the beneficial owners of a private banking account are those who generally have ultimate control over the funds in the account and those who are the ultimate source of funds for the account and whose source of wealth should be subject to due diligence1. These two criteria are meant to ensure that the bank knows who is ultimately behind the account and where the funds come from, in order to prevent the use of the bank for money laundering or other criminal purposes. Authorized signers on the account or those who have legal title to a controlling share interest in the customer are not necessarily the beneficial owners, as they may act on behalf of others or have limited influence over the account.

References: 1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, 1

 A politically exposed person (PEP) is a customer who requires the most enhanced due diligence (EDD). This is because PEPs are individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, judges, military officers, or directors of state-owned enterprises, and who may pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds1. EDD measures for PEPs may include obtaining senior management approval, establishing the source of wealth and funds, and conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship2.

The other customers listed do not necessarily require the most EDD, although they may still present a higher risk of money laundering depending on the circumstances. A resident of a non-cooperative jurisdiction is a customer who lives in a country or territory that has been identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) or other international bodies as having weak or deficient anti-money laundering (AML) standards or posing a threat to the international financial system3. EDD measures for such customers may include obtaining additional information or documentation, applying extra scrutiny to transactions, or refusing to establish or continue the business relationship4. An international business corporation is a customer who operates in multiple jurisdictions and may have complex or opaque ownership structures that can conceal the identity or activity of the beneficial owners or controllers. EDD measures for such customers may include verifying the legal existence and structure of the entity, identifying the beneficial owners and controllers, and understanding the nature and purpose of the business relationship. An established customer is a customer who has a long-standing and regular business relationship with the financial institution and who may have a lower risk of money laundering due to the familiarity and trust that has been built over time. EDD measures for such customers may not be required unless there are changes in the customer’s profile, behavior, or risk level.

References:

1: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) - FATF1 2: High-risk customers, including politically exposed persons | FCA2 3: High-Risk and Other Monitored Jurisdictions - FATF3 4: Your responsibilities under money laundering supervision | GOV.UK4 : International Business Corporations - ACAMS : Anti-Money Laundering Customer Due Diligence | Veriff.com : Customer Due Diligence - ACAMS : Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the red flags for money laundering in loan transactions is “the use of shell companies or other legal entities whose ownership is not transparent or whose beneficial owners are unknown” (p. 223). Money launderers may use such entities to hide their identity and the source of their funds, or to create complex layers of transactions to obscure the trail of money. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering risk, as they could be explained by legitimate factors such as the location of the property, the repayment schedule, or the choice of attorney.

References:

• ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.
• MLO Mentor: Anti-Money Laundering 1
• Compliance Obligations of Certain Loan or Finance Company Affiliates of Federally Regulated Banks and Other Financial Institutions 2

The customer’s wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and the large volume of activity with low month-end balance are two facts that should be considered during the course of an investigation into possible money laundering. These facts may indicate that the customer is trying to move funds from or to countries that have weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that are known to be a source or destination of illicit funds12. They may also suggest that the customer is using a technique called “smurfing” or “structuring”, which involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting34. The other two facts are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, as the customer may have a legitimate reason to have a long-standing account at the bank or to be on the exempt list for currency transaction reporting requirements.

References: 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Geographic Concerns, 5; 2: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators?, ComplyAdvantage, 6; 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Transaction Has Unusual Features, 5; 4: Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, High Speed Training, 7.

 According to the BSA/AML Manual1, one purpose of filing SARs is to identify violations or potential violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for criminal investigation. Therefore, when an institution receives a document request from law enforcement with regard to an STR that the institution has filed, it should cooperate and provide the documents that were previously collected to support the STR. This will help the law enforcement agency to conduct its investigation and follow up on the suspicious activity reported by the institution. The institution should also maintain the confidentiality of the STR and the document request, and avoid tipping off the customer or any other person involved in the suspicious activity.

References:

• BSA/AML Manual1
• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations2
• Suspicious Transaction Report STR3

 The Fourth European Union Directive on money laundering (AMLD4) requires member countries to maintain registries of the beneficial owners of legal entities, such as companies, trusts, foundations, etc. This is to ensure that the true identity and ownership of the customers and the natural persons on whose behalf transactions are conducted are known to the obliged entities, such as banks, lawyers, accountants, etc., and to the competent authorities, such as regulators, supervisors, or law enforcement12. This requirement aims to prevent the misuse of legal entities for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes, and to enhance transparency and access to beneficial ownership information34.

References: 1: AMLD4, Article 30, 5; 2: AMLD4, Recital 25, 5; 3: AMLD4, Recital 26, 5; 4: AMLD4, Recital 27, 5.

 The most appropriate step for an AML compliance officer to take upon receiving notice of government update including the names of the latest terrorists sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council is to update the monitoring software containing sanctioned persons. This is because the AML compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the financial institution does not engage in any transactions or business relationships with individuals or entities that are subject to sanctions, as this could expose the institution to legal, regulatory, and reputational risks. By updating the monitoring software, the AML compliance officer can ensure that the institution’s screening and filtering systems are up to date and can flag any potential matches or hits with the sanctioned persons. This would also enable the AML compliance officer to take appropriate actions, such as blocking or freezing funds, reporting to the relevant authorities, and conducting further due diligence, if necessary.

References:

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org, Overview.
• AML Compliance Officer and Their Responsibilities - Tookitaki, Role and Responsibilities of an AML Compliance Officer.
• What is an AML Compliance Officer? - Sanction Scanner, Communicate openly with the company’s internal management team.
• Guidance on Existing AML Program Rule Compliance … - FinCEN.gov, Financial Institutions Toll-Free Hotline.

According to 18 U.S.C. § 1956, the money laundering statute, the property involved in a financial transaction must represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, which is defined as a specified unlawful activity (SUA). SUAs include over 250 crimes in six categories, such as RICO predicate offenses, certain offenses against foreign nations, acts constituting a criminal enterprise under the Controlled Substances Act, and federal health care offenses. Therefore, in order to pursue a money laundering conviction, the government must prove that at least one SUA was committed and that the property involved in the transaction was derived from that SUA.

References:

• 18 U.S. Code § 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments, (a)(1) and ©(7).
• 957. Money Laundering—18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 & 1957, first paragraph.
• Specified Unlawful Activities (SUA), first paragraph.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the training elements that should be delivered to new tellers during employee orientation is “large cash transaction reporting procedures” (p. 224). This is because tellers are often the first line of defense against money laundering and have the responsibility to identify and report any transactions that exceed the threshold of $10,000 or are otherwise suspicious. The other options are not relevant for tellers, as they are more suitable for higher-level or specialized staff.

References:

• ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.
• AML Requirements for Tellers 1
• Deposit Compliance Training Courses 2

As the compliance officer is providing overview of the "bank's anti-money laundering program to a group of new tellers during employee orientation"

as there's NO mitigating control, the temporary control system must be developed and implemented until the permanent mitigating control is developed and implemented.

The primary consideration the institution should keep in mind when deciding whether to agree to the law enforcement request is whether the institution can continue to meet its regulatory obligations with the accounts open. This is because the institution has a duty to comply with the applicable laws and regulations, and to protect its reputation and integrity from being associated with money laundering or terrorist financing. The institution should assess the risks and benefits of keeping the account open, and consult with its legal counsel and senior management before making a decision. The institution should also document its decision and the rationale behind it, and communicate it to the law enforcement agency12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 7: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, p. 143-144 2: FATF Guidance: Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Measures and Financial Inclusion, February 2013, p. 50-51, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/AML_CFT_Measures_and_Financial_Inclusion_2013.pdf

 According to the FATF Recommendation 12, financial institutions should take reasonable measures to determine whether the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and/or, where required, the beneficial owner of the beneficiary are politically exposed persons. This should occur at the latest at the time of the payout1. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the abuse of life insurance products for money laundering or terrorist financing by PEPs or their associates. Therefore, the best way to mitigate the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP is to perform due diligence on the beneficiary, such as verifying their identity, relationship with the PEP, and source of funds2.

The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the FATF standards, or do not adequately address the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP. Determining the source of wealth and source of funds is a measure that should be applied to the PEP as the customer, not the beneficiary, as part of the enhanced due diligence process2. Declining the request if the beneficiary is a foreign PEP may not be feasible or proportional, as not all foreign PEPs are involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, and some may have legitimate reasons to add a beneficiary to their life insurance policy. Declining the request to add a beneficiary due to increased risk may also not be feasible or proportional, as it may violate the contractual rights of the PEP as the customer, and may not be necessary if the due diligence on the beneficiary does not reveal any red flags or suspicions.

References: https://complyadvantage.com/insights/peps-life-insurance/

https://www.cfatf-gafic.org/index.php/documents/fatf-40r/378-fatf-recommendation-12-politically-exposed-persons

Evaluating the risk scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every eighteen to twenty-four months, before the launch of a new product, or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.

According to the Wolfsberg Principles on Correspondent Banking1, an institution should consider the following three elements in its enhanced due diligence process for higher risk respondent bank customers:

• The quality of the respondent’s AML and client identification controls: The correspondent should assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the respondent’s AML policies, procedures, and systems, as well as its compliance with applicable AML laws and regulations. The correspondent should also verify that the respondent has implemented appropriate customer identification and verification measures, and that it maintains sufficient records of its customers and transactions.
• A risk-based determination as to whether or not the respondent is a shell bank: The correspondent should ensure that the respondent is not a shell bank, which is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The correspondent should also avoid establishing or maintaining relationships with banks that are known to allow their accounts to be used by shell banks.
• Whether a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) has an interest or management role in the respondent: The correspondent should identify and assess the potential risks associated with any PEPs who have an ownership or management interest in the respondent, or who are customers of the respondent. The correspondent should apply enhanced scrutiny and monitoring to such relationships, and obtain senior management approval before establishing or continuing them.

References:

• Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 2022 by the Wolfsberg Group, October 2022.

The correct next course of action is to request that the new product approval committee include the compliance officer. This is because the compliance officer has the responsibility to ensure that the new financial service complies with the applicable laws, regulations, and standards, and does not pose any undue risks to the institution or its customers. The compliance officer should be involved in the new product development process from the beginning, and provide guidance and feedback on the potential compliance implications and requirements of the new service12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 6: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, p. 121-122 2: FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 2013, p. 28, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Role-of-hawala-and-similar-in-ml-tf.pdf

 A significant reduction in suspicious transaction report (STR) filings at a particular branch could indicate that the branch is not properly identifying and reporting suspicious activities, or that the branch is experiencing a change in customer behavior or risk profile. Therefore, the most appropriate action for an anti-money laundering specialist is to review the branch exception reports, which are reports that highlight transactions or activities that deviate from the expected or normal patterns, based on the customer profiles and risk assessments. By reviewing the branch exception reports, the specialist can determine whether there are any changes in activity that warrant further investigation or reporting, or whether there are any gaps or weaknesses in the branch’s compliance program or procedures.

The other options are not as appropriate as reviewing the branch exception reports, as they do not directly address the issue of suspicious activity reporting. Placing the branch on the watchlist may be a subsequent action, but it does not provide immediate insight into the reason for the reduction in STR filings. Analyzing the branch activity reports may show whether there has been a decrease in branch activity, but it does not explain why the activity has decreased, or whether the remaining activity is suspicious or not. Reviewing the staff records may reveal whether inexperienced personnel are in critical positions without appropriate training, but it does not account for other factors that may affect the branch’s compliance performance, such as management oversight, internal controls, or customer risk.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 361; ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 12; What Is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? Triggers and Filing3; Reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC4.

 The best option for the compliance officer is to follow the financial institution’s established STR reporting policy, which should include procedures for reporting suspicious activity involving senior management or board members. This would ensure that the compliance officer acts in accordance with the bank’s internal controls and governance, and avoids any potential conflicts of interest or breaches of confidentiality. The other options are not advisable because they could either compromise the integrity of the STR filing, expose the compliance officer to legal or reputational risks, or alert the subject of the investigation.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 1401
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 843

An anti-money laundering officer should coordinate with human resources when implementing a new hire screening program, because human resources is responsible for managing the recruitment, hiring, and training of employees, as well as ensuring compliance with labor laws and regulations. A new hire screening program is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program, as it helps to prevent the hiring of individuals who may pose a risk of facilitating money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes, or who may have a criminal or disciplinary history that could compromise the integrity of the institution. A new hire screening program should include background checks, verification of credentials and references, and assessment of skills and competencies relevant to the AML function. An anti-money laundering officer should work closely with human resources to establish the criteria, procedures, and documentation for the screening program, as well as to monitor its implementation and effectiveness.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Developing an AML Program, Lesson 4.2: Developing an AML Program
• ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 4: Developing an AML Program, Section 4.2: Developing an AML Program, pp. 81-82
• ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 4: Developing an AML Program, Section 4.2: Developing an AML Program, Slide 20

 The important fact to include in the STR is the recent change in the timing of deposits and withdrawals in the account, as this indicates a possible change in the customer’s source and use of funds, and may suggest money laundering or other illicit activity. The customer’s work history, the amount of his monthly retirement check, the fact that he is well known to the bank staff, and the fact that he has lived in the area and banked at this bank for 25 years are not relevant for the STR, as they do not explain the unusual pattern of transactions in his account.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, page 131
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation, page 8
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 4.2: Suspicious Transaction Reporting
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 97

 Having inadequate privacy policies and procedures can expose an organization to legal risks such as industry or regulatory sanctions and charges of deceptive business practices. Industry or regulatory sanctions can result from violating the laws and regulations that govern data privacy and protection, such as the GDPR, the CCPA, or the GLBA. These sanctions can include fines, penalties, injunctions, or revocation of licenses. Charges of deceptive business practices can arise from misleading or false statements about how the organization collects, uses, or discloses personal data, or from failing to comply with its own privacy policies and procedures. These charges can lead to lawsuits, settlements, or enforcement actions by authorities such as the FTC or the state attorneys general.

References: =

• The 4 Biggest Risks of Non-Compliance With Data Privacy Regulations
• Security and privacy laws, regulations, and compliance: The complete guide
• An Ethical Approach to Data Privacy Protection

The correct answer is C. Wires received in large, even dollar amounts are a suspicious behavior, as they may indicate an attempt to avoid reporting thresholds or to conceal the source of funds. Large and round numbers are often used by money launderers to simplify calculations or to avoid arousing suspicion12. The other options are not necessarily suspicious, as they may reflect the normal business operations of a wholesale auto business that ships vehicles internationally. The dock shipping receipts match the vehicles (A), vehicles are regularly shipped internationally (B), and account debits are payable to transport companies (D) are all plausible and legitimate activities for such a business.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course3, Module 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 2: Methods of Money Laundering
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 3.2: Methods of Money Laundering, pp. 79-80

 The next course of action for the anti-money laundering officer to take is to determine if there is a readily identifiable cause for the increase in compliance deficiencies. This could involve analyzing the data, interviewing the staff, reviewing the procedures, or conducting a root cause analysis. The anti-money laundering officer should try to find out if the deficiencies are due to human error, system failure, policy ambiguity, training gap, external factors, or any other reason. By identifying the cause, the anti-money laundering officer can then take appropriate corrective or preventive measures to address the issue and improve the compliance performance.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pages 171-172
• CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 3, Task 3.1, Skill 3.1.2
• Anti-Money Laundering & Know Your Customer eBook, Chapter 5, pages 63-64
• Summary of the Global Anti-Money Laundering Know Your Customer Policy, page 3

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature uses a money trader to ensure that US drug sales revenue doesn’t cross any borders. Instead, those dollars are used to purchase any number of legitimate commodities from unsuspecting businesses on behalf of legitimate South American businesspersons, whose legitimate imports are used to obtain pesos for the drug cartels. This method is closely associated with international trade because it involves the exchange of goods and currencies across different countries, and it exploits the discrepancies between the official and unofficial exchange rates.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 35
• Black Market Peso Exchange in Money Laundering - Financial Crime Academy
• What is BMPE ? - Sanction Scanner
• Overview - FinCEN.gov

The correct answer is A and C. Law enforcement should determine who are the signatories on the account and examine the flow of money from the company to the individual in an effort to determine if it is legitimate. These steps would help to identify the source and destination of the funds, the purpose and nature of the transactions, and the possible involvement of money laundering or other financial crimes. Asking the bank for the history of the multi-level marketing company (B) may not be relevant or useful, as the company may have a legitimate business model or a false front. Examining possible Suspicious Activity Report information received from the local Financial Intelligence Units (D) may be helpful, but it is not a necessary step, as the bank may not have filed any reports or the reports may not contain sufficient information.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, Lesson 1: Investigating Techniques for Law Enforcement
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, Section 4.1: Investigating Techniques for Law Enforcement, pp. 125-126

 The compliance officer should provide regular updates of corrective action to the designated board committee, as they are ultimately responsible for the oversight of the organization’s anti-money laundering program. The board committee should be informed of the audit findings, the corrective action plan, the progress and challenges, and the completion of the remediation. This will help ensure that the board committee is aware of the risks and issues, and can provide guidance and support to the compliance officer and the management.

References: =

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 671
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.52
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Flashcards, Question 893

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the employee should report the conversation to the compliance officer because the colleague is engaging in tipping off, which is a serious violation of anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Tipping off is the act of informing a person or entity that they are the subject of a suspicious transaction report or an investigation, or providing any information that may compromise or impede the investigation. Tipping off can result in criminal penalties, civil liabilities, and disciplinary actions for the individual and the institution. Therefore, the employee has a duty to report the colleague’s misconduct to the compliance officer, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and taking appropriate corrective actions.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 97
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation, page 8
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, video 3.4: Tipping Off and Confidentiality
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 8, Answer B

The USA PATRIOT Act imposes several requirements on U.S. financial institutions when dealing with foreign financial institutions, especially those that pose a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Two of these requirements are:

• Performing enhanced due diligence on shell banks: A shell bank is a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts are not being used by shell banks indirectly12.
• Performing due diligence on correspondent accounts: A correspondent account is an account established by a financial institution to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of, or handle other financial transactions for a foreign financial institution. The USA PATRIOT Act requires U.S. financial institutions to collect and verify certain information about the foreign financial institution, such as its ownership, licensing, and anti-money laundering policies, and to assess the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing associated with the correspondent account13.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pages 82-84
• CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, Candidate Handbook, page 14
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.4: Correspondent Banking and Money Laundering Risks

QUE According to the ACAMS Study Guide, one of the skills of an effective AML investigator is to conduct investigative interviews using appropriate techniques and methods1. One of the techniques is to use open-ended questions that elicit detailed responses from the interviewee, and to avoid leading or suggestive questions that may reveal the investigator’s assumptions or suspicions1. Therefore, the best option is to ask question of a material nature about the suspected false statements without revealing the suspected deception, as this would allow the investigator to gather more information and evidence, and to test the consistency and credibility of the interviewee’s answers.

The other options are not advisable or effective, because:

• A. Informing the suspect that deception is obvious and continuing the interview is not a good strategy, because it may antagonize the suspect and make them less cooperative or more defensive. It may also alert the suspect to the investigator’s knowledge and sources, and give them an opportunity to change or modify their story2.
• B. Advising the suspect that the interview will be terminated if there is suspicion of deception is not a good strategy, because it may create a negative impression of the investigator and the investigation, and it may discourage the suspect from providing any useful information. It may also imply that the investigator has insufficient evidence or authority to pursue the case2.
• C. Directing the interview in another direction until there is better rapport before returning back to the troubling question is not a good strategy, because it may waste time and resources, and it may lose the focus and momentum of the investigation. It may also signal to the suspect that the investigator is not confident or competent, and it may give the suspect a chance to prepare or rehearse their answers2.

References:

1: ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation, page 105. 2: 46 AML Investigator Interview Questions (And Sample Answers)

STION NO: 96

A bank employee recently opened an account for a new restaurant. Daily cash deposits over a three-month

period are close to $9,500.

What are two red flags that indicate possible money laundering or terrorist financing? (Choose two.)

A. The restaurant is located in a different city

B. The daily cash deposits are so close in amount

C. It is a new account that has daily cash deposits

D. The new account demonstrates a steady flow of income

Answer: BD

These two options are potential red flags for money laundering or terrorist financing because they could indicate an attempt to avoid the reporting threshold of $10,000 for cash transactions, or to conceal the source or origin of the funds. According to the ACAMS Study Guide, some common indicators of money laundering are:

• Transactions structured to avoid recordkeeping or reporting requirements
• Transactions inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity
• Transactions involving the use of multiple accounts or locations
• Transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions or entities
• Transactions involving cash or complex crypto assets

The other two options are not necessarily red flags by themselves, as they could have legitimate explanations. For example, the restaurant could be located in a different city because of market demand, or the new account could demonstrate a steady flow of income because of the success of the business.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 41-42
• FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, page 1-2
• 4 Red Flags of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing, page 1
• Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, page 1

According to the FATF typology report 2000-20011, lawyers can provide a range of functions that can be useful to a potential money launderer, such as:

• Creating complex legal arrangements, such as trusts, foundations, or corporations, that can obscure the identity and ownership of the beneficial owners or the origin and destination of the funds.
• Buying and selling property, such as real estate, art, or jewelry, that can be used to transfer or store illicit proceeds or to provide a legitimate cover for the source of funds.
• Performing financial transactions on behalf of a client, such as opening bank accounts, transferring funds, issuing checks, or exchanging currencies, that can facilitate the movement or concealment of illicit funds.

Providing legal advice, on the other hand, is not a function that can be directly exploited by a money launderer, unless the advice is related to the above functions or to the avoidance or evasion of anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

References:

1: FATF Terrorist Financing Typologies Report - Financial Action Task Force2

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the best practices for dealing with law enforcement inquiries is to verify the identity and authority of the law enforcement officer before providing any information (p. 224). This is to ensure that the inquiry is legitimate and not a phishing attempt or a breach of confidentiality. The compliance officer should also document the inquiry and the information provided, and consult with legal counsel if necessary. The other options are not appropriate, as they may either violate the law, compromise the investigation, or create unnecessary work.

References:

• ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.
• What Is An AML Officer1

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, the most important question the banker should ask when opening a numbered or alternate name account is who will control the account. This is because such accounts pose a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the identity and beneficial ownership of the funds. Therefore, the banker should perform enhanced due diligence and verify the identity and source of funds of the person who has the authority to operate the account, as well as the purpose and nature of the business relationship12

The other questions are less relevant or secondary to the issue of control. The inheritance of the proceeds in the event of the businessman’s death is a matter of succession law and does not affect the identification of the beneficial owner. The amount of money deposited into the account may indicate the level of risk, but does not reveal the origin or destination of the funds. The account-opening date is a procedural detail that does not affect the compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards12

References:

• 1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Core principles for effective banking supervision, 2012, Principle 14 and Essential Criterion 14.1
• 2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, 2014, Paragraphs 30 and 31

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, a U.S. bank that maintains a correspondent account for a foreign bank operating under an offshore license must obtain from the foreign bank the name and address of a person residing in the United States who is authorized to accept service of legal process for records related to the correspondent account1. This requirement is intended to facilitate the U.S. authorities’ access to information and records regarding the correspondent account and its underlying transactions, especially in cases where the foreign bank is located in a jurisdiction that does not cooperate with U.S. law enforcement or regulatory requests2.

References:

• USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)(2)(A)1
• ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pp. 151-152

According to the Basel Committee’s paper on Customer Due Diligence for Banks1, banks should review their existing customer relationships on a regular basis, especially for higher risk categories of customers or business relationships. This includes identifying whether the customer or the beneficial owner is a PEP, either at the account opening stage or later, as a result of a change in the customer’s circumstances or profile. The paper also states that banks should apply a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate level and type of due diligence depending on the risk profile of the customer or the beneficial owner.

References:

• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 20011
• FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22), June 20132
• ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4

 Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to designate foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, classes of transactions, or types of accounts as being of primary money laundering concern, and to impose one or more of five special measures on them. These special measures range from requiring enhanced recordkeeping and reporting to prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for the designated entities. The purpose of these special measures is to protect the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by the designated entities.

References:

• USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov
• FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | FinCEN.gov
• International Financial Crime: Treasury’s Roles and Responsibilities Should Be Updated - GovInfo

The correct answer is C, as mapping scenarios are helpful in mitigating the weakness of not generating alerts when activity is consistently abnormal over a long period of time. Mapping scenarios are used to compare a customer’s activity with their expected activity based on their profile, risk rating, or historical behavior1. By using mapping scenarios, the organization can identify customers whose activity deviates significantly from their normal or expected patterns, and flag them for further investigation. Mapping scenarios can also help detect changes in customer behavior over time, and alert the organization of any potential money laundering or terrorist financing risks.

References: 1: AML Scenarios: Transaction Monitoring Challenges - Unit21, page 1.

 Under USA PATRIOT Act Section 311, the U.S. government can impose special measures against a foreign jurisdiction, institution, or transaction that is of primary money laundering concern1. These measures can range from requiring additional recordkeeping and reporting to prohibiting or restricting the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the designated entity2. A payable-through account is a type of correspondent account that allows customers of a foreign bank to access the U.S. financial system by writing checks or making wire transfers from the foreign bank’s account at a U.S. bank3.

In this case, the U.S. government has enacted special measures against a designated entity that has a payable-through account with an EU bank, which in turn has a correspondent banking relationship with a U.S. bank. One of the possible actions that the U.S. bank might be required to take regarding the EU bank’s services for the designated entity is to obtain additional information about customers permitted to use this account. This is to ensure that the U.S. bank can identify and monitor the transactions and activities of the designated entity and its customers, and to prevent any money laundering or terrorist financing risks4.

The other actions listed are not likely to be required by the U.S. government under Section 311. Ensuring the designated entity’s confidential information is not shared with other entities is not a special measure, but a general obligation of any financial institution under privacy laws. Verifying that the EU bank serves the designated entity is not a relevant action, since the U.S. government has already designated the entity as a primary money laundering concern. Performing enhanced due diligence on the EU bank is not a specific action related to the payable-through account, but a broader requirement for any correspondent account under Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act5.

References:

1: USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov1 2: 311 Actions | U.S. Department of the Treasury2 3: Overview of Correspondent Banking and “De Risking” Issues - CRS Reports3 4: U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS4 5: Fact Sheet: Overview of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act5

it describes the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with shell banks. This is one of the requirements for correspondent accounts in the USA PATRIOT Act, which is a law enacted in 2001 to enhance the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act requires that correspondent banks, which are banks that provide services to other banks, such as clearing, settlement, or cash management, to obtain a certification from their respondent banks, which are banks that receive services from correspondent banks, to ensure that they are not involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities. One of the elements of the certification is that the respondent bank does not do business with shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence or meaningful supervision in any jurisdiction, and are often used by money launderers and other criminals to hide their identity and funds.

The other options are not necessarily the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although they may have some relevance or importance depending on the circumstances and the nature of the correspondent relationship. Option A describes a possible certification by a federal receiver, which is a person appointed by a court to take custody and control of the assets of a failed bank, but this is not related to the correspondent accounts requirements in the USA PATRIOT Act. Option B describes a possible certification by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with politically exposed persons (PEPs), which are individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions or their close associates or family members, and who may pose a higher risk of money laundering or corruption, but this is not a mandatory element of the certification under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it may be a good practice or a risk-based measure. Option C describes a possible certification by a correspondent bank, certifying that they do not open correspondent accounts for alternative remittance companies, which are businesses that provide money transfer or payment services outside the formal banking system, and which may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but this is not a requirement for the respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it may be a regulatory obligation or a risk-based measure for the correspondent bank.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1
• Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2
• ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 7, pages 156-157

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

"Increasingly, countries are using economic sanctions instead of military force as an instrument of foreign policy"

 According to the web search results, the Egmont Group is a united body of 170 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that provides a platform for FIUs to securely exchange expertise and financial intelligence to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12. The goal of the Egmont Group is to provide a forum for FIUs around the world to improve support to their respective governments in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes345. The other options are not correct because they either do not capture the full scope of the Egmont Group’s activities, or they are not the primary focus of the Egmont Group.

References: https://egmontgroup.org/

https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239473.htm\

Customer due diligence should be implemented as an ongoing activity that may vary commensurate with the risk profile of the customer. This is because the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing may change over time, depending on the customer’s behavior, transactions, products, services, and geographic locations. The institution should monitor the customer’s activity and update the customer’s information and risk assessment periodically, or when there are red flags or significant changes in the customer’s circumstances. The institution should also apply enhanced due diligence measures for customers that pose higher risks, and simplified due diligence measures for customers that pose lower risks12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, p. 18-19 2: FATF Guidance: Customer Due Diligence and Financial Inclusion, February 2018, p. 10-11, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Guidance-CDD-and-Financial-Inclusion-2018.pdf

The correct answer is A and D, as these two statements are directly quoted from the Wolfsberg Group’s “Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism” document1. Statement A describes the general role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism, while statement D describes the specific due diligence measures that financial institutions should apply to customers engaged in high-risk sectors or activities. Statement B and C are not part of the Wolfsberg Group’s document, and they are not accurate descriptions of the role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism. Statement B is too vague and unrealistic, as financial institutions cannot guarantee to drive down terrorism by analyzing activity types. Statement C is too narrow and prescriptive, as financial institutions may not have the resources or the mandate to create dedicated financial intelligence units for terrorist financing.

References: 1: The Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism – Wolfsberg Statement, page 213-214.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), the bank’s anti-money laundering officer is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of the bank’s anti-money laundering program, which includes reporting and escalating suspicious activities involving PEPs. The anti-money laundering officer should be informed of any unusual or potentially illicit transactions involving PEPs, and decide on the appropriate course of action, such as filing additional reports, conducting enhanced due diligence, or terminating the relationship with the PEP. The other options are not correct because they are either not directly involved in the anti-money laundering program, or not the appropriate authority to contact in this situation.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 77-78. 123456789

Money laundering can have negative effects on a country’s currencies and interest rates, as it distorts the allocation of resources and the demand and supply of money. According to the IMF1, money laundering can also adversely affect currencies and interest rates as launderers reinvest funds where their schemes are less likely to be detected, rather than where rates of return are higher. This can create artificial fluctuations and imbalances in the exchange and interest rates, and undermine the effectiveness of monetary policy. For example, if launderers invest in low-yield assets such as government bonds or real estate, they may drive up the prices and lower the yields of these assets, while reducing the availability of funds for more productive investments. This can also affect the inflation and growth prospects of the country.

References:

• 1: Macroeconomic Implications of Money Laundering by Peter J. Quirk, IMF Working Paper, 1996
• 2: Understanding Money Laundering: How It Impacts the Global Economy by Tookitaki, 2019
• 3: Money Laundering by U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2021
• 4: The Consequences of Money Laundering and Financial Crime by John McDowell and Gary Novis, U.S. Department of State, 2001

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are characteristics of D. only involving two countries, E. cooperatively combating crime between countries, and F. being useful for gathering evidence and intelligence in a foreign country. MLATs are public and binding under international law (A), can be used for obtaining banking records from treaty partners (B), and provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence ©.

The primary responsibility of a financial intelligence unit is to act as an intermediary between the entities subject to money laundering obligations and law enforcement agencies. Financial intelligence units are responsible for receiving and analyzing suspicious activity reports (SARs) from entities subject to money laundering obligations, and then forwarding relevant information to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the financial intelligence units are responsible for providing expertise to Egmont working groups to help develop new techniques to detect and prevent money laundering.

These two options are indicative of money laundering red flags associated with money service businesses, as they may suggest attempts to avoid reporting requirements, conceal the source or destination of funds, or use false or stolen identities. Money service businesses are vulnerable to money laundering due to the high volume and anonymity of transactions, the ease of cross-border transfers, and the lack of effective regulation and supervision in some jurisdictions12. Therefore, they should implement robust anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and monitor and report any suspicious activity.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, page 631
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3, Lesson 42

According to the CAMS Study Guide, EDD is a higher level of scrutiny applied to customers who pose a greater risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. EDD may include obtaining additional information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, business activities, beneficial owners, and expected transactions. Details on individuals with control over the account are relevant for EDD, as they may indicate the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs), sanctioned individuals, or other high-risk entities. Therefore, this information should be gathered as part of EDD for a high-risk customer.

References: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Manual [1], 6th edition, financial entities that violate Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws can face several reputational risks such as loss of high-profile customers, seizure of assets, increased audit costs to monitor behavior, and monetary penalties. For example, the US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) imposes civil money penalties on "persons who willfully violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause any violation of any provision of the Bank Secrecy Act or its implementing regulations." (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 26).

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure and verify transactions. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized and operate outside the control of any central authority, such as a government or a bank. This makes them attractive for money launderers, who can use them to transfer funds anonymously, quickly, and globally, without leaving a trace or being subject to regulation. Cryptocurrencies pose more risk of money laundering than other sources of money, such as wire transfers, credit cards, or money service businesses, which are subject to more oversight, verification, and reporting requirements.

References:

• CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.9, page 37
• CAMS eLearning Course, Module 1, Lesson 9
• ACAMS Crypto Hub

The red flags that should be considered prior to establishing a relationship with a third party are the lack of anti-corruption compliance clauses in agreements (A) and unusual payment or billing procedures requested by the third party (C). According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Sixth Edition manual, "red flags include, but are not limited to: [...] lack of anti-corruption compliance clauses in agreements (page 330) and unusual payment or billing procedures requested by the third party (page 331)."

Financing terrorism generally refers to providing money or other support, such as personnel or technology, to terrorist activities. This can include providing funds to terrorist networks, providing services to support terrorist operations, and providing resources to support terrorist activities. In this case, paying producers and reporters for television and web messaging would be considered financing of terrorism, as it is providing support for terrorist activities.

A large cash deposit is a red flag for money laundering when it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile, behavior, or business activity. A customer who has never conducted a transaction in cash before may be trying to avoid detection or conceal the source of the funds. A customer who transacts in segments smaller than the reporting thresholds at various times during the day may be engaging in structuring or smurfing, which are techniques to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. A customer who follows a large cash deposit with an immediate wire transfer to an offshore secrecy haven may be attempting to layer or move the funds to a jurisdiction with weak anti-money laundering controls or high confidentiality. These scenarios indicate a high risk of money laundering and warrant further investigation and reporting.

A customer who operates a cash-based business may have a legitimate reason to make a large cash deposit, depending on the nature and scale of the business. However, this does not mean that the customer is exempt from scrutiny or monitoring, as cash-based businesses are also vulnerable to money laundering abuse. The bank should verify the source and purpose of the funds, and compare the deposit with the customer’s expected activity and turnover.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.
• Warning signs of money laundering | The Law Society, Section: Cash deposits and withdrawals.

The product type that is subject to US extra jurisdictional reach over non-US banks and non-US persons under the USA PATRIOT Act is Correspondent Banking. According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide, "The USA PATRIOT Act extends the reach of the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes to non-U.S. banks and non-U.S. persons. This extra jurisdictional reach includes, but is not limited to, correspondent banking."

 According to the ACAMS Study Guide, an effective AML program should include four key elements: internal controls, independent testing, designated compliance officer, and training1. Internal controls are policies, procedures, and processes that help prevent, detect, and report money laundering and terrorist financing activities. One of the essential components of internal controls is customer due diligence (CDD), which involves identifying and verifying the customer, understanding the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, and conducting ongoing monitoring of customer transactions and risk profiles2. Ongoing monitoring is crucial for detecting and reporting suspicious activities, updating customer information, and reassessing customer risk ratings3.

In this case, the bank’s written AML program does not address monitoring of customer account activity, which is a significant gap in its internal controls. The bank serves high-income, high net-worth clients who include non-residents and offshore businesses, which are considered high-risk customers for AML purposes4. The bank should have enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures for these customers, such as obtaining additional information, conducting more frequent reviews, and applying stricter transaction limits5. The fact that the consultant and the bank have mutual clients does not affect the risk rating or the due diligence requirements of those customers. Therefore, the consultant should recommend the bank to revise its procedures to better assess ongoing customer activity and comply with the AML standards.

References:

• 1: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program
• 2: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 3: Conducting Customer Due Diligence
• 3: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 4: Ongoing Monitoring and Suspicious Activity Reporting
• 4: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 5: Identifying High-Risk Customers
• 5: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 6: Applying Enhanced Due Diligence Measures

Law enforcement should obtain documentation from an institution when suspicious activity was identified by either requesting copies of the relevant documents from the accountable institution or acquiring a search warrant to obtain the documents. These are the legal and proper ways to access the supporting documentation that the institution is required to maintain for five years after filing a suspicious activity report (SAR). The institution must provide the documentation upon request by FinCEN or an appropriate law enforcement or supervisory agency, and should verify the identity and authority of the requestor. Law enforcement can also obtain a search warrant from a court if they have probable cause to believe that the documents contain evidence of a crime.

References:

• Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation
• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 1.
• Obtaining Documentation from an Institution: Law Enforcement Procedures

The most important risk factor in this scenario is the proposed offshore jurisdiction that is known for its strong privacy laws limiting access to customer information by law enforcement. This indicates that the customer may be trying to evade tax, hide the source or destination of funds, or engage in other illicit activities that could expose the bank to money laundering or terrorist financing risks. Offshore jurisdictions are often used by criminals to create complex corporate structures that obscure the beneficial ownership and control of the entities involved. The bank should conduct enhanced due diligence on the customer, the offshore company, and the nature and purpose of the transactions.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 35-36, 38-39
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.3, Offshore Financial Centers
• 1, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Offshore Financial Centers and Money Laundering
• 2, CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.3

this activity is unusual and inconsistent with the expected behavior of an accounting firm’s operational account. The account should normally receive fees from clients that are proportional to the services rendered and reflect the market rates. Receiving international payments that are substantially higher than other fees could indicate that the account is being used to launder money or finance terrorism by disguising illicit funds as legitimate income. This could trigger a red flag for the bank and prompt a comprehensive review of the account.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.6, page 24: “Methods to launder money used in banks and other deposit taking institutions”.
• ExamTopics, Question 446: “An accounting firm opened an account at a bank that is intended to be used as the operational account for the business. After a few months, a comprehensive review of the account was triggered due to unusual activity on the account. Which most likely triggered the review?”

 Conducting small cash transactions at multiple locations during the same day is the strongest example of avoiding reporting thresholds. This is a common technique used by money launderers to evade the attention of financial institutions and regulators, who are required to report cash transactions above a certain amount (usually $10,000) to the authorities. By splitting the large sum of money into smaller amounts and depositing them at different branches or ATMs, the money launderer can avoid triggering the reporting requirement and conceal the source and destination of the funds. This practice is also known as smurfing or structuring12.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.2, Structuring and Smurfing
• 1, Smurfing Money Laundering: Mechanics, Detection, and Prevention
• 2, AML & eWallets - The Risks & How To Comply | ComplyAdvantage

The most concerning trading pattern for a compliance officer when a new customer has been onboarded in a securities firm is the customer accumulating securities of a low volume counter in small increments on a weekly basis. This type of behavior could indicate that the customer is attempting to obscure their identity or the true purpose of their trading activity, which can be indicative of money laundering or other suspicious activity. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 170).

AML risk assessments are a key component of the risk-based approach to AML compliance, as required by the MLR 20171 and the FATF Recommendations2. AML risk assessments help FIs to identify, assess, and mitigate the money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face, taking into account their specific products, services, customers, and geographic locations. AML risk assessments also help FIs to allocate their resources and implement their AML policies and procedures in a proportionate and effective manner. AML risk assessments are not meant to be a one-off exercise, but rather an ongoing process that should be updated regularly to reflect changes in the FI’s risk profile and the external environment.

References:

• 1: The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017
• 2: The FATF Recommendations - International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation

This is an emerging risk associated with cyber-enabled fraud because the use of false identities and documents can allow criminals to disguise their activities and evade detection. In such cases, the name and address provided on the account may not match the name and address on the government-issued documentation. This discrepancy can be difficult to detect, making it a potential risk for financial institutions.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the common methods of money laundering in the insurance sector is to purchase policies with illicit funds, overpay premiums, and then cancel or surrender the policies to receive refunds or payouts1. This allows criminals to move and disguise the source of their funds through the insurance company. Therefore, the regular withdrawals from the policy by the end of the month could indicate a money laundering scheme. Moreover, the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector states that unidentified third parties depositing cash to the policy could also pose a high money laundering risk, as cash transactions are difficult to trace and third parties may act as intermediaries or nominees for the real beneficiaries2. Therefore, the insurance company should conduct enhanced due diligence on the policyholder and the third parties, and monitor the transactions for any suspicious activity.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 671
• FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector, pages 18-192

The Asian/Pacific Financial Action Task Force-Style Regional Body (APG) helps its members implement recommendations from the FATF by facilitating the adoption and implementation of internationally accepted AML measures by member jurisdictions (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 22). The APG also encourages cooperative AML efforts in the region, which can include information-sharing and mutual evaluations to assess member compliance with FATF recommendations (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 25). Therefore, options C and D are the correct answers.

The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend a financial institution to investigate the source of funds, identify people and companies that are clearly related, and identify a person fully, including their political history, when dealing with individuals holding important public positions. These are essential steps to conduct enhanced due diligence based on public information, as they can help to assess the risk profile, the legitimacy, and the transparency of the customer relationship. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s list of public officials is not a reliable source of public information, as it is not comprehensive, updated, or verified. Therefore, it is not a sufficient criterion to check the background of potential customers.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 971
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 32
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 4, Task 23

The potential red flag that alludes to money laundering is option B, where the trio engage in minimal gambling and combine the funds to request a casino cheque for the chips presented. This behavior is indicative of structuring, which involves breaking down large transactions into smaller ones to avoid detection by the casino and regulatory authorities. The fact that the trio only used a small amount of chips to play games, and then combined their funds to request a casino cheque, raises suspicions that they may be attempting to disguise the origin of their funds.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards for suspicious activity reports (SARs) information sharing within a financial group, "Financial institutions should establish adequate procedures to ensure that confidentiality of information is maintained and that information is only used for purposes permitted under national law. Where the parent institution is located in a country that does not permit such sharing, financial institutions should take measures to address this limitation" (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 476). Therefore, financial institutions must establish sufficient safeguards concerning the confidentiality of information shared for AML purposes.

A court order is a legal document issued by a judge or a magistrate that authorizes or requires a person or an entity to perform or refrain from performing a certain action. A court order to freeze an account is a legitimate request that requires the bank to comply, as it is a binding and enforceable order that may be issued for various reasons, such as preventing the dissipation of assets, preserving evidence, or facilitating the recovery of funds. A bank that receives a court order to freeze an account should follow its policies and procedures to verify the authenticity and validity of the order, and to implement the freeze as instructed by the order. A bank should also file a SAR if it suspects or has reason to suspect that the account is involved in suspicious or illicit activity.

The other options are not legitimate requests that require the bank to respond. A verbal request to keep an account open, a written request to seize privileged documents, or a request to produce documents and testimony without a subpoena are not legally binding or enforceable, and may violate the bank’s obligations to protect the privacy and confidentiality of its customers. A bank may choose to cooperate with law enforcement in these situations, but it is not required to do so. A bank should also consider the potential risks and implications of maintaining an account or disclosing information that may be related to suspicious or illicit activity, and consult with its legal counsel as appropriate.

References:

• Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts
• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations
• OCC Bulletin 2007-37: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts
• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

According to the CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods to launder money using TCSPs is to create a complex web of transactions involving multiple entities and jurisdictions, often using shell companies and nominees. The payment of consultancy fees to unrelated companies and service providers established in a foreign jurisdiction could be a sign of such a scheme, as it could be used to disguise the origin and destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes and regulations. Therefore, this transaction indicator warrants further escalation to the compliance officer.

References: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 69.

Reputational risk is the potential for negative publicity, public perception, or legal action to adversely affect a financial entity’s image, brand, or customer loyalty1. Violating AML laws can have significant reputational risks for financial entities, as they may be perceived as facilitating or enabling money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. This can result in a loss of trust, credibility, and revenue from existing and potential customers, especially those who are high-profile, sensitive, or socially responsible23. Moreover, violating AML laws can also attract negative media attention, regulatory scrutiny, and legal action, which can further damage the reputation of the financial entity and expose it to additional sanctions, fines, or penalties4.

References:

• 1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 16
• 2: ComplyAdvantage, 5 AML Reputational Risk Considerations for 2023, link
• 3: Exam-Answer, Reputational Risk Consequences for Violating AML Laws, link
• 4: Unit21, 8 AML Penalties, Fines, and Sanctions + Examples You Should Avoid, link

Under the Egmont Group Principles, information exchange among financial intelligence units (FIUs) should be conducted freely, spontaneously, and upon request, on the basis of reciprocity. This means that FIUs should be willing to share information without the expectation of reciprocity on how the information will be used. The goal is to facilitate the cooperation and exchange of information among FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.

The customer’s relocation and expansion to different jurisdictions constitutes a triggering event that requires ongoing due diligence on this client, as it may indicate changes in the customer’s risk profile, business activities, or beneficial ownership. The bank should update the customer’s information, verify the identity and legitimacy of the new entities, and assess the level of money laundering and sanctions risks associated with the new locations12. The other options are not triggering events, as they are either consistent with the customer’s normal business operations or do not affect the customer’s risk profile.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 931
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22

 The Board of Directors is the primary governing body of a financial institution and has the fiduciary duty to oversee and approve the BSA/AML compliance program. One of the key responsibilities of the Board is to ensure the appointment of a qualified chief AML officer who has the authority, expertise, and resources to implement and manage the BSA/AML program effectively. The chief AML officer is accountable to the Board and senior management for the performance of the BSA/AML program and should report regularly on the status, issues, and challenges of the program. The Board should also evaluate the chief AML officer’s performance and provide feedback and guidance as needed.

References:

• The Board’s Role in AML Compliance
• Board Member Responsibilities for BSA/AML Compliance
• Responsibilities of the Board of Directors in Implementing a Successful AML Program

this situation requires enhanced due diligence actions according to the AML principles of the Wolfsberg group. The Wolfsberg group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop standards and best practices for AML and CFT in the private banking sector. The group has issued a set of principles and guidance on how to conduct due diligence on private banking customers, especially those who pose higher risks, such as politically exposed persons (PEPs), customers from high-risk countries, and customers with complex or opaque structures. According to the Wolfsberg group, private banks should apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence and perform enhanced measures for high-risk customers, such as obtaining senior management approval, verifying the identity and source of wealth of the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the relationship, and conducting ongoing monitoring and review.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.5, page 118: “The Wolfsberg Group”.
• ExamTopics, Question 466: “Which private banking situation requires due diligence actions to be implemented according to the AML principles of the Wolfsberg group?”

A domestic business account receiving a wire transfer from an international business with no history of such activity or business needs should be escalated as potentially suspicious activity. This is because this scenario may indicate an attempt to launder money, evade taxes, or finance terrorism through cross-border transfers that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose. The lack of prior relationship or business justification for the wire transfer may also suggest that the transaction is not consistent with the customer’s profile or expected activity. Therefore, this scenario should be investigated further and reported if necessary.

References:

• 9 Financial & Bank Suspicious Activity Examples, Example 2.
• CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 40-41.

The methods that are typically used to launder money using insurance companies are:

• The policy holder overpays the policy and moves the funds out of the policy despite paying early withdrawal penalties. This method involves placing large amounts of illicit funds into an insurance policy, usually a life insurance or an annuity, and then requesting a refund or a surrender of the policy. The policy holder may incur some fees or penalties for the early withdrawal, but they will receive a check or a wire transfer from the insurance company that appears to be a legitimate source of income. This method allows the launderer to layer and integrate the funds into the financial system.
• The policy holder uses an offshore company to pay the insurance installments. This method involves setting up a shell company or a trust in a jurisdiction with low or no tax and weak or no anti-money laundering regulations. The launderer then uses the offshore entity to purchase an insurance policy or a bond from a reputable insurance company. The offshore entity pays the premiums or the installments using the illicit funds, and the launderer can claim the benefits or the returns from the policy or the bond as clean money. This method allows the launderer to hide the true ownership and origin of the funds.

The other options are not typical methods of money laundering using insurance companies, because:

• The policy holder enters a sibling as a beneficiary of the insurance policy rather than themselves. This method does not involve any movement or disguise of the illicit funds, and it does not generate any income or return for the launderer. The beneficiary of the policy will only receive the payout upon the death of the policy holder, and the insurance company will conduct due diligence on the beneficiary before releasing the funds.
• The policy holder purchases a bond and redeems it at a discount prior to its full term. This method does not make sense for a money launderer, because it involves losing money rather than gaining money. A bond is a fixed-income instrument that pays a regular interest and a principal amount at maturity. If the bond is redeemed before its full term, the bond holder will receive less than the face value of the bond, and will also forfeit the future interest payments. This method does not help the launderer to conceal or legitimize the source of the funds.
• The policy holder is strongly interested in how many costs are incurred when taking out an insurance policy. This method does not indicate any money laundering activity, but rather a prudent and rational behavior of a potential customer. The policy holder may want to compare different insurance products and providers, and to understand the fees, charges, commissions, and taxes associated with the policy. This method does not involve any placement, layering, or integration of the illicit funds.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 1.2: Methods of Money Laundering, Subsection 1.2.5: Insurance Products, pp. 19-20
• AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, Section: Common Money Laundering Methods in Insurance, Paragraphs 1-3
• Discuss Acams CAMS Exam Topic 1 Question 43, Suggested Answer by Deeanna at May 04, 2022, 10:16 PM

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, structuring is a technique used by money launderers to avoid triggering currency transaction reporting requirements by breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits that are below the reporting threshold1. Structuring can also involve withdrawing cash in small amounts from different locations or branches to evade detection and scrutiny2. Therefore, the compliance analyst is potentially identifying structuring as the type of money laundering in this case.

References:

• 1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3, page 14
• 2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.4, page 15

B. An internal auditor with the requisite knowledge and expertise of AML: An internal auditor with sufficient knowledge and expertise in AML regulations and compliance requirements can perform the AML audit.

D. Qualified bank staff if not involved in the AML function being tested: Qualified bank staff who are not involved in the AML function being audited can perform the AML audit.

Political system changes can have an impact on an organization's AML risk as they can affect the legal and regulatory framework in which the organization operates. For example, changes to the laws or regulations related to AML, or changes in the way in which the government enforces AML regulations, can have an impact on the organization's AML risk by increasing or decreasing the likelihood of it being exposed to AML risk. In addition, changes in the political environment or political stability in a specific jurisdiction can also affect the organization's AML risk.

According to the FATF Recommendation 40, which sets the standards for international cooperation in relation to money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing, countries should ensure that exchanged information is used only for the purpose for which it was sought or provided, and that any dissemination or use of the information beyond the original scope is subject to prior authorization by the requested competent authority. Moreover, countries should have safeguards in place to ensure that the information exchanged is protected in a manner that is consistent with the way they protect their own information of a similar nature. One of the possible safeguards is to require the use of non-disclosure agreements or other legal instruments to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure of the exchanged information.

References: = FATF Recommendation 40, Section A.3; Compliance Trends: AML Information Sharing, Section: Cross-border AML information sharing; Safeguarding AML Information Exchanged with Other Countries, Section: Answers.

Financial institutions (FIs) are required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in their investigations of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. However, sometimes LEAs may submit requests for information or documents that are overly broad, unduly intrusive, or unreasonable in scope or volume. Such requests may pose challenges or risks for FIs, such as violating customer privacy, compromising data security, disrupting business operations, or incurring excessive costs.

The most appropriate response for an FI in such a situation is to narrow the request through a prompt response to the LEA. This means that the FI should communicate with the LEA as soon as possible to clarify the purpose, scope, and relevance of the request, and to negotiate a more reasonable and proportionate request that meets the LEA’s needs and the FI’s capabilities. The FI should also explain the potential difficulties or consequences of complying with the original request, and propose alternative or additional sources of information that may be more useful or accessible. The FI should document the communication and the agreed terms of the request, and comply with the request in a timely and accurate manner.

By narrowing the request through a prompt response, the FI can demonstrate its good faith and willingness to cooperate with the LEA, while also protecting its own interests and obligations. This can help avoid or resolve any conflicts or misunderstandings between the FI and the LEA, and facilitate a more efficient and effective investigation.

References:

• Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts
• EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT BY AML/CFT SUPERVISORS OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
• Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts
• Support of Law Enforcement
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide 6th Edition

The Egmont Group assists financial intelligence unit members to accomplish their goals by providing support to expand and systematize cooperation related to the reciprocal exchange of information, fostering better and secure communication through the application of technology, and encouraging operational autonomy of financial intelligence units. Additionally, the Egmont Group also maintains uniform global formats for funds transfers that assist in the detection of money laundering and supplies information on the common money laundering tactics used by terrorists and financial supporters of terrorism.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Manual , 6th edition, if a bank's transaction surveillance system triggers an alert for a deposit of 250.000 USD into a client's account, the bank should take the following actions:

• Request information and documentation from the client on the background of the transaction (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 46).
• Contact the client advisor to learn if he has any insight on the transaction background (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).
• Review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

Discarding the alert as a false positive hit and reviewing the alert if the deposit is made in cash should not be done.

The bank should request additional information and documentation from the client to better understand the nature of the transaction. Additionally, the bank should reach out to the client advisor to learn if they have any insight on the transaction background. Finally, the bank should review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform to determine if any additional alerts or anomalies are present. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Pages 117-118)

The two red flags indicating potential engagement of a bank employee in money laundering are A. Lavish lifestyle that cannot be supported by an employee's salary, and E. Maintaining friendships with customers and going to restaurants, games, and other events. A bank employee who has a lifestyle that cannot be supported by their salary could be receiving money from illicit activities. Similarly, if the employee is maintaining friendships and going to social events with customers, they could be receiving money in exchange for providing special services. These behaviors should be monitored closely to ensure that the employee is not engaging in activities that could be linked to money laundering.

The Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide states that financial institutions should address all requests from law enforcement agencies completely and in a timely manner (Page 83). Disregarding requests when there is a justifiable reason for doing so is not recommended, as this could impede the investigation. Sharing information about the investigation with analysts is not recommended, as this could compromise the investigation. Delaying responses by informing senior management of requests is also not recommended, as this could result in a delay in the investigation.

When presented with a search warrant, the AML specialist should record the names and affiliations of the agents who conduct the search. This will help in identifying who conducted the search in case there are any issues that need to be addressed later. Additionally, the AML specialist should obtain a copy of the warrant or photocopy the original warrant. This is important to ensure that the warrant is valid and that the agents are authorized to conduct the search. It is not appropriate to ask the agents questions or remember what items they have seized, as this could interfere with the search and potentially lead to legal issues. Finally, leaving the premises to allow the agents to conduct the search is not necessary, as the AML specialist has the right to be present during the search.

The threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist despite the absence of a US nexus. This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 591, which states: “It is important to note that the threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist even when there is no direct US nexus (i.e., no US persons or assets involved).”

According to the FATF Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons1, financial institutions should assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with a business relationship or transaction with a PEP, their family members and close associates, on a case-by-case basis. This includes obtaining information on the source of wealth and source of funds of the customer and the beneficial owner, as well as conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship. Therefore, the appropriate next step for the analyst is to review the beneficial ownership of the customer to determine if the PEP or any other person poses a higher risk, and to apply additional measures accordingly. Removing the PEP as the authorized signatory, re-categorizing the customer as high-risk, or categorizing the authorized PEP signatory as high-risk are not necessarily required or sufficient steps, as they do not take into account the specific circumstances and risk factors of the customer and the PEP.

References:

• CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS
• FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22)
• How Politically Exposed Persons Put Financial Institutions at Risk

A TCSP providing services should have policies and procedures in place to identify critical information of the signatory, as this is one of the key elements of the customer due diligence (CDD) process. The signatory is the person who has the authority to sign documents or contracts on behalf of the customer, such as a company, a trust, or a partnership. The signatory may also be the beneficial owner, the controller, or a nominee of the customer. The TCSP should verify the identity and the capacity of the signatory, as well as the source and origin of the funds or assets involved in the transaction or business relationship. The TCSP should also monitor the activities of the signatory and report any suspicious or unusual transactions or changes in the signatory’s behaviour or profile.

References:

• ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2: Customer Due Diligence (CDD), Subsection 2.2.1: CDD Process, pp. 51-52
• RISK-BASED APPROACH GUIDANCE FOR TRUST AND COMPANY SERVICE PROVIDERS (TCSPs), Section III – Guidance for TCSPs, Subsection III.1: Risk Assessment, pp. 23-24
• SRA | Trust and Company Service Provider guidance | Solicitors Regulation Authority, Section: Definition, Paragraph 2
• A Trust and Company Service Provider (TCSP) providing services should have policies and procedures in place to identify critical information of the:, Answer B

 According to the Wolfsberg Group, the FI should take the following steps regarding the opening of the account for the senior government official:

• Reasonably establish if the source of wealth and funds of the official is legitimate. This is to ensure that the FI is not facilitating the laundering of proceeds of corruption, bribery, or other illicit activities by the official, who is considered a politically exposed person (PEP) and poses a higher risk of financial crime. The FI should obtain information and documentation on the origin and ownership of the funds, the official’s income and assets, and the purpose and expected activity of the account12.
• Perform due diligence procedures on the managing intermediary. This is to verify the identity, reputation, and regulatory status of the intermediary, who acts as a third party on behalf of the official. The FI should also assess the intermediary’s own AML/CFT policies and controls, and the nature and extent of the relationship between the intermediary and the official13.
• Determine whether the intermediary representative is acting on the officer’s behalf. This is to establish the beneficial ownership and control of the account, and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or undue influence by the intermediary. The FI should obtain a written confirmation from the intermediary that they are authorized to act on behalf of the official, and that they will disclose any changes in the beneficial ownership or control of the account13.

References:

• 1, Wolfsberg Group, Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), 2023
• 2, Wolfsberg Group, FAQs on Source of Wealth (SoW) & Source of Funds (SoF), 2023
• 3, Wolfsberg Group, FAQs on Intermediaries, 2023

A. Geographic risks should be used to identify the priority of the Fl in this scenario. According to the CAMS Manual (6th Edition), "Geographic risk refers to the possibility that the location of a customer, transaction, or product may increase the likelihood of money laundering or terrorist financing because of weak or nonexistent AML/CFT controls" (p. 59). In this scenario, the expansion to an area of the world with weak AML laws would increase the Fl's geographic risk.

The principles of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FILLs) aimed at maximizing cooperation between FILLs to more effectively combat money laundering are [1]:

B. Information exchange should take place informally, without too many formal prerequisites. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 55)

E. It is within an FlU's authority to sign Memorandums of Understanding independently. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 56)

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the FATF mutual evaluation process is a peer review mechanism that assesses the level of compliance of a country with the FATF 40 recommendations and the effectiveness of its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing system. The mutual evaluation report identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the assessed country and provides recommendations for improvement. The assessed country needs to address the shortcomings identified in the report and agree to post-assessment monitoring by FATF, which involves regular follow-up reports and actions to remedy the deficiencies. The other options are not correct, as they do not reflect the FATF mutual evaluation process or the obligations of the assessed country.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 4: International Standards and Global Initiatives, page 97.

FATF, Methodology for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT Systems, February 2013, updated October 2019, 1.

FATF, Procedures for the FATF Fourth Round of AML/CFT Mutual Evaluations, October 2019, 2.

 The account officer has violated the principle of confidentiality by informing the customer about the legal request from law enforcement. This could amount to tipping off, which is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. Tipping off could jeopardize the investigation, compromise evidence, and alert other potential suspects. The account officer should not discuss any details of the investigation with the customer, nor should he meet with the customer to do so. He should also report his actions to his manager and compliance department, and cooperate with law enforcement as required.

References:

• ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Lesson 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Section 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing, pp. 135-136
• ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Task 4.3: Maintain confidentiality of the investigation, p. 18