ACAMS CAMS Dumps

Financial institutionsmust close accounts that violate sanctions laws or pose a severe AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Doing business with Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) violates U.S. OFAC and EU sanctions, requiring account closure.

Option A (Incorrect):Multiple SARs do not always require account closure; the institution may continue monitoring the customer.

Option B (Incorrect):Tuition payments are normal transactions and do not justify account closure.

Option D (Incorrect):A civil subpoena does not imply financial crime and does not require closure.

Key Account Closure Triggers:

Violation of OFAC, EU, or UN sanctions laws.

Confirmed criminal activity (e.g., fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing).

Regulatory directive or legal requirement to terminate the account.

Best Practices for Account Closure:

Document the justification for closure (e.g., sanctions compliance, AML concerns).

Notify the customer in a manner that does not constitute "tipping off."

File SARs where required before closing high-risk accounts.

According to section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions must apply due diligence to such accounts. The due diligence must include obtaining information relating to the foreign bank’s anti-money laundering program, as well as the identity of any person who owns 10% or more of the foreign bank, unless the foreign bank is publicly traded. These requirements are intended to prevent the use of correspondent accounts by foreign shell banks or other entities that may pose a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov

FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | FinCEN.gov

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street

CAMS Exam: USA PATRIOT Act Requirements for Opening a Correspondent Account

The main objective when a financial institution (FI) conducts an investigation is to track the movement of the money. Money laundering is a process of disguising the proceeds of criminal activity to make them appear legitimate. The movement of money is an essential element in the process of money laundering. Therefore, tracking the movement of funds is a crucial step in identifying and preventing money laundering. A financial institution must be able to recognize suspicious transactions and report them to the relevant authorities. An investigation is conducted to gather evidence and establish a clear understanding of the transaction flow, the parties involved, and the nature of the activity. This information is used to determine if the transaction is suspicious and if it violates any laws or regulations.

While keeping policies and procedures updated, keeping documentation, and knowing the customer are essential components of a comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) program, these activities are not the primary objective of an investigation. Policies and procedures need to be updated to reflect changes in regulatory requirements and emerging money laundering risks. Documentation must be retained to provide evidence of the investigation process and outcomes. Knowing the customer is essential to identify and verify the customer’s identity and assess the risk associated with the relationship.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 3: AML Programs, Section 3.2: AML Program Components, Subsection 3.2.4: Transaction Monitoring and Investigation, pp. 87-88

Main Objective of Conducting Investigations - exam-answer.com

According to the USA PATRIOT Act, US authorities do have the power to subpoena records from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks. This is known as a "section 314(a) request," which allows law enforcement to obtain information related to suspected terrorist financing or money laundering.

However, US authorities are not limited to seizing only funds transferred under OFAC sanctions if there is an equivalent UN sanctions regime that has been contravened. The US government can impose its own sanctions that are independent of the UN, and can seize funds or take other actions to enforce those sanctions.

Therefore, the correct answers to the question are A and C:

A. If the funds are seized, then the foreign bank would be within its rights to dispute such seizure. C. The USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General to subpoena records from the foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a US bank.

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.

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

 This involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions that are below the reporting threshold of $10,000 in the United States, in order to avoid detection and reporting by the financial institution. Structuring is a red flag for money laundering and should be reported to the authorities as a suspicious activity. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, as they could have legitimate explanations. For example, the customers may have a family or business connection to the same recipient in Country B, or they may have a regular need to send money three times a week.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.2: Common Money Laundering Techniques

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 91

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Study Guide, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Page 38

The FATF conducts mutual evaluations—a peer review process—whereby member countries assess each other’s AML/CFT systems. This includes on-site visits and reviews by international experts, with public reports containing recommendations for improvement. The process is not punitive and does not impose sanctions.

“FATF mutual evaluations are peer reviews in which experts from member countries assess another member's AML/CFT system and provide recommendations.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, International AML/CFT Standards; FATF Methodology, Recommendation 40)

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.

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

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 thebenefits 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.

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

Bank A should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) on the transaction in Country A, as it is the financial institution that observes and processes the suspicious activity in its jurisdiction. According to the FATF Recommendations, financial institutions should report any transaction that they have reason to suspect is related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other criminal activities, regardless of the amount involved1. The STR should include information about the originator, the beneficiary, and the purpose of the transaction, as well as the reasons for suspicion2. Bank A should also comply with any legal or regulatory requirements in Country A regarding the reporting of cross-border wire transfers3.

1: FATF Recommendation 20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions

2: FATF Interpretive Note to Recommendation 20

3: FATF Recommendation 16 - Wire transfers

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering andexchanging 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.

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

 Enhanced due diligence (EDD) is a set of additional measures that must be applied by financial institutions (FIs) in higher-risk situations, such as when dealing with customers or transactions from high-risk third countries, customers who are politically exposed persons (PEPs), or customers who present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. EDD may include obtaining more information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, source of wealth, business relationships, and purpose of the transaction, as well as conducting more frequent and intensive ongoing monitoring of the customer’s activities.

However, EDD may be bypassed for certain situations where the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is low, and where the customer is subject to adequate supervision and regulation in the EU or the US. According to the CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition1, one such situation is when on-boarding a casino that is part of an international hotel chain, provides less than 50% of overall revenue and that fully complies with group-wide policies and procedures. This is because such a casino is likely to have a low risk profile, as it is not the main source of income for the hotel chain, and it adheres to the same standards and controls as the rest of the group. Therefore, EDD may not be necessary for this situation, and the FI may apply simplified due diligence (SDD) instead.

The other situations listed in the question are not eligible for bypassing EDD, as they involve higher-risk factors, such as dealing with customers or entities from high-risk third countries, customers with complex ownership structures, or customers who are PEPs. These situations require FIs to apply EDD measures to mitigate the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 84

White Paper on KYC — Enhanced Due-Diligence, page 2

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence, page 3

Enhanced Due Diligence for High-risk Customers, page 1

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for theadministration and enforcement of economic and trade sanctions. These sanctions are based on U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and target:

Foreign countries and regimes

Terrorist organizations

Narcotics traffickers

Individuals and entities engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

OFAC acts under various authorities, including national emergency powers granted by the President and specific legislation. One of its primary tools is theSpecially Designated Nationals(SDN) List, which identifies individuals and entities whose assets are blocked and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing.

It is important to note that OFAC is not responsible for designating jurisdictions as primary money laundering concerns (a task handled by FinCEN under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act), nor does it manage trade agreements.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the key elements of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is ongoing training for all relevant staff. Training should cover the legal and regulatory obligations, the risks and red flags of money laundering and terrorist financing, the procedures and controls for customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, the reporting and record-keeping requirements, and theroles and responsibilities of the staff and the management. Training should also be tailored to the specific functions and needs of the staff, and should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the AML environment and the FI’s policies and procedures.

PEPs are considered high-risk customers for AML purposes, as they may abuse their positions of power and influence to commit or facilitate corruption, bribery, embezzlement, or other financial crimes. Therefore, it is essential that the FI’s staff are aware of the definition and categories of PEPs, the sources and methods to identify and verify PEPs, the enhanced due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring that apply to PEPs, and the escalation and reporting procedures for suspicious activities involving PEPs .

If an internal audit reveals that a large group of employees do not know how to handle PEPs, this indicates a serious gap in the FI’s AML training program, which could expose the FI to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. Therefore, the next course of action that should be taken is to create a company-wide training program that covers the relevant aspects of PEPs, and to ensure that the training is delivered to all staff who deal with PEPs or have access to PEP-related information. The training should also be evaluated for its effectiveness and impact, and the results should be reported to the senior management and the board of directors.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, page 51-52

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Conducting Customer Due Diligence, page 75-78

FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22), June 2013, 1

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting Ongoing Monitoring, page 97-98

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, the AML Specialist at a bank should take the following actions upon receiving a confidential alert from law enforcement about suspected money launderers:

Involve the bank’s legal and compliance function to address the gravity of the matter and ensure that the bank’s response is appropriate and lawful. The legal and compliance function can also advise on the bank’s obligations and rights under the relevant laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Perform a search on the bank’s client data platform to determine if the bank has had any business with the named individuals or any related parties. The search should include current and past accounts, transactions, wire transfers, and other relevant records. The AML Specialist should also review any existing customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) information on the potential suspects and update them as necessary.

The other options are not recommended or required actions for the AML Specialist at a bank in this scenario:

Sending out an email to all of the bank’s client advisors to request information on any of the individuals could compromise the confidentiality of the alert and expose the bank to legal and reputational risks. It could also alert the suspects or their associates and hinder the law enforcement investigation.

Reporting findings back to law enforcement only if they are of any significance is not sufficient or compliant with the bank’s obligations to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity. The AML Specialist should report any relevant information or findings to law enforcement as soon as possible, regardless of their significance, and follow the established procedures and protocols for information sharing and reporting.

Responding to law enforcement that their request without a judicial order would breach the bank’s GDPR duty with respect to its clients is not accurate or helpful. The GDPR does not prohibit the bank from sharing personal data with law enforcement for the purposes of preventing, detecting, or investigating money laundering or other criminal activities, as long as the bank has a legal basis and safeguards for doing so. The bank should consult with its legal and compliance function to determine the best way to respond to the law enforcement request and balance its GDPR obligations with its anti-money laundering (AML) duties.

Money laundering risks arise whentransaction patternsareinconsistent with a business’s expected activity.

Option D (Correct):Multiple cash deposits in different branchesis a knownstructuring (smurfing) technique, used toevade cash transaction reporting thresholds.

Option A (Incorrect):Depositing intoboth checking and savings accountsisnormal behavior.

Option B (Incorrect):Irregular incoming paymentsmay require further review but arenot inherently suspicious.

Option C (Incorrect):Industry-related expenses (e.g., conference tickets)arenormal business activity.

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.

How Shell Companies Are Used in Money Laundering: A Detailed Guide

Shell Companies and Money Laundering

The Role of Shell Companies in Money Laundering

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 banksthat 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.

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

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, two channels that can be utilized during a cross-border money laundering investigation to assist in gathering information are contacting existing liaison officers in the foreign jurisdiction and exchanging information between national law enforcement agencies. These are two of the methods that the FATF recommends in its guidance on international cooperation1. The FATF states thatliaison officers can facilitate the exchange of information and intelligence, provide operational support, and coordinate joint investigations1. The FATF also encourages the use of bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements to enable the exchange of information and intelligence between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the use of informal networks or mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units1.

Option C is incorrect because contacting the potential suspect or their family members to request information is not a recommended channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. This method may alert the suspect of the investigation, compromise the confidentiality of the information, or violate the legal rights of the suspect or their family members. Moreover, the information obtained from the suspect or their family members may not be reliable or admissible in court.

Option D is incorrect because submitting only formal requests for information to a financial intelligence unit (FIU) is not a sufficient channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. While FIUs play an important role in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating financial information, they are not the only source of information for cross-border investigations. The FATF guidance states that investigators should also seek information from other competent authorities, such as law enforcement, supervisory, or judicial authorities, depending on the nature and purpose of the information sought1. Furthermore, the FATF guidance advises investigators to use both formal and informal channels of communication, as formal requests may take longer or face legal obstacles1.

1: FATF, International Co-operation Review Group, Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, October 2012, pp. 13-18.

This represents the highest risk factor for terrorist financing because it may indicate that the charity is diverting funds to support terrorist organizations or activities, or that it is acting as a front or conduit for terrorist financing. Disbursement of funds to entities unrelated to the purpose of the charity may also violate the donor’s intentions, the charity’s mission, or the applicable laws and regulations. A charity with unaudited accounts may have weak internal controls, governance, or transparency, which may increase the risk of misappropriation, diversion, or misuse of funds.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector, pp. 40-41

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector, Slide 18

A financial intelligence unit (FIU) is a national body or government agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates financial information related to potential financial crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the core functions of an FIU is to receive disclosures filed by reporting entities, such as banks, money service businesses, casinos, and other obliged entities, that are required to report suspicious or unusual financial activity. These disclosures, also known as suspicious activity reports (SARs) or suspicious transaction reports (STRs), provide valuable intelligence for the FIU and other competent authorities to identify and investigate financial crimes and trace illicit funds. The other statements do not describe the duties of an FIU, but rather the roles of other agencies or bodies, such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the US, which administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions, or the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which sets international standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) supervision and regulation.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Lesson 1: The Financial Intelligence Unit

The Financial Intelligence Unit: Role of the FIU and International Cooperation, Financial Crime Academy

What We Do, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

AFinancial Intelligence Unit (FIU)acts as thecentral hub for AML/CFT intelligencein a country.

Option A (Correct):FIUs collect, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligencerelated tosuspicious transactionsto law enforcement and regulators.

Option B (Incorrect):FIUsdo not prosecute cases; theyrefer cases to law enforcementfor prosecution.

Option C (Incorrect):FIUsanalyze databut donot develop surveillance technology.

Option D (Incorrect):FIUs share intelligencewith authorized entities, butnot real-time criminal datawith the private sector.

Types of FIUs:

FIU Model

Description

Example

Administrative FIU

Operates under agovernment agency or central bank.

FinCEN (USA), AUSTRAC (Australia)

Law Enforcement FIU

Operates within alaw enforcement body.

UK NCA (UK), IMPA (Israel)

Judicial FIU

Operates within ajudicial authority.

Belgium CTIF-CFI

Why FIUs Are Important:

They bridge the gap between banks, regulators, and law enforcement.

They ensure confidential handling of SARs.

They support domestic and international cooperation in AML/CFT efforts.

One of the criteria that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) uses to define non-cooperative countries and territories (NCCTs) is the lack of adequate rules for the licensing and creation of financial institutions, especially those with no or minimal presence, and the lack of effective systems for checking the backgrounds of managers and beneficial owners of such institutions. This criterion aims to prevent the establishment and operation of shell banks or other entities that can be used for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes. The FATF requires that countries and territories should have laws and regulations that ensure that financial institutions are subject to adequate licensing or registration procedures, that the authorities have the power to deny or revoke licenses or registrations, and that the authorities have access to information on the identity, reputation, and financial soundness of the managers and beneficial owners of financial institutions.

= Some of the references that support this answer are:

About the Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories NCCT Initiative, Section “The review and listing process”: “The FATF established at that time four regional review groups (Americas, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Africa/Middle East) consisting of representatives from the FATF member governments that served as the main points of contact with the reviewed country or territory. … The review groups gathered relevant laws, regulations and other relevant information, analysed this information against the 25 NCCT criteria, and drafted a report that was sent to the jurisdictions for comment.”

Annual Review of Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories 2006-2007: Eighth NCCT Review, Annex 1: “List of Criteria for Defining Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories”, Criterion 1: “Licensing and creation of financial institutions, in particular those with no physical presence, and the ability to obtain information on the beneficial ownership and control of such institutions.”

FATF (Financial Action Task Force) Countries 2024 - World Population Review, Section “Blacklisted Countries”: “These are countries which were previously placed on the grey list and advised by the FATF to adopt the recommended financial security procedures, but have either failed or refused to do so. Blacklisted countries may be labeled as Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories (NCCTs).”

Transaction monitoring alerts requirefurther analysisto determine whether they indicategenuine suspicious activity or a false positive.

Option C (Correct):Requesting information from the relationship manager helps gather customer background details, past transaction patterns, and business rationale.

Option A (Incorrect):Below-the-line testing assesses system effectiveness but does not resolve an immediate AML alert.

Option B (Incorrect):Directly contacting a counterparty bank may violate privacy regulations and should only be done if escalation is required.

Option D (Incorrect):Restricting access without due diligence may lead to regulatory and reputational risks.

Best Practices for Investigating AML Alerts:

Review transaction history and customer risk profile.

Engage the relationship manager for business context.

Escalate to AML compliance teams if red flags persist.

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), the bank should have a clear policy on how to deal with intermediaries, such as lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or other financial institutions, that introduce or manage clients on behalf of the bank. The policy should reflect the following aspects1:

The bank should perform due diligence on the intermediary itself, including its ownership, reputation, regulatory status, and AML policies and procedures.

The bank should obtain the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and verify them using reliable and independent sources, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

The bank should assess the level of due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, and determine whether it is equivalent or comparable to the bank’s own standards. If not, the bank should perform additional due diligence on the intermediary’s clients, or decline to accept them.

The bank should monitor the transactions and activities of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

Option B is consistent with these aspects, as it states that the bank must obtain the same type of information with respect to an introduced client that would otherwise be obtained by the bank, absent the involvement of the intermediary. This ensures that the bank has a sufficient understanding of the client’s identity, source of wealth, and risk profile, and can apply appropriate AML measures.

Option C is also consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and is the account holder with the bank, but that intermediary does not conduct the same level of due diligence as the bank, it is necessary for the bank to undertake due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This ensures that the bank does not rely solely on the intermediary’s due diligence, and can identify and mitigate any potential money laundering risks associated with the clients.

Option A is not consistent with these aspects, as it states that when an intermediary introduces clients to the bank, it is not necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank should obtain and verify the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced by the intermediary, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

Option D is also not consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and arranges for the opening of accounts for its clients with the bank, and that intermediary is a financial institution subject to similar regulations, it is necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank may rely on the due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, if the intermediary is a regulated financial institution that applies equivalent or comparable AML standards to the bank, and if the bank has access to the relevant information and documentation.

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 3: Intermediaries

A sound Customer Due Diligence Program (CDD) is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) framework. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CFT, CDD involves the following elements1:

Identifying the customer and verifying their identity using reliable, independent sources of information or documents.

Identifying the beneficial owner and taking reasonable measures to verify their identity, so that the financial institution understands who ultimately owns or controls the customer or the funds.

Understanding and obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.

Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutinizing transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the financial institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, and the source of funds.

Therefore, the three elements of a sound CDD program that are listed in the question are:

Determination of what type of customer the financial institution will accept: This involves defining the customer acceptance policy and risk appetite of the financial institution, and applying appropriate risk-based measures to accept or reject customers based on their risk profile and the financial institution’s ability to manage and mitigate those risks2.

Training as to how and to what extent to identify prospective customers: This involves providing adequate and regular training to the staff who are responsible for conducting CDD, and ensuring that they are aware of the legal and regulatory requirements, the internal policies and procedures, the risk indicators, the verification methods, and the reporting obligations3.

Obtaining date of birth and address of a prospective customer: This is part of the basic information that is required to identify and verify the customer’s identity, and to establish their risk profile and the source of funds. The date of birth and address can also be used to check against various databases and watchlists to detect any potential matches with sanctioned or high-risk individuals or entities4.

The element that is not part of a sound CDD program is:

Determination of who in the institution should be assigned to the prospective customer as a liaison: This is not a mandatory or essential element of CDD, although it may be a good practice to assign a dedicated relationship manager or contact person to each customer, especially for high-risk or complex customers, to ensure effective communication, monitoring, and service delivery.

FATF Guidance on Customer Due Diligence and Financial Inclusion 1

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) 2

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 4: Developing an AML/CFT Program 3

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 5: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process 4

Wolfsberg Group Guidance on Customer Due Diligence (CDD)

 the specialist should inform the bank’s senior legal advisor of the situation and seek guidance on how to handle the legal request and the internal memos. The specialistshould not take any action that could compromise the integrity of the legal request, the bank’s anti-money laundering program, or the specialist’s own professional obligations. The specialist should not place the memos in his personal files, as this could be seen as hiding or tampering with evidence. The specialist should not ask the bank president to document his instructions, as this could create a conflict of interest or a perception of undue influence. The specialist should not call the law enforcement agent and suggest he modify the legal request, as this could be seen as interfering with the investigation or tipping off the account holder.

Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Legal Sector (January 2021) p. 1321

ACAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist | ACAMS2

Anti-Money Laundering – The Law Society of Singapore3

The red flags that most likely triggered the referral are:

B. Several cash deposits along the country's border that are quickly withdrawn by third parties. C. Several lodging and food payments made on the same day at unusual hours for a business.

Red flag B suggests possible structuring activity, where individuals are trying to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements by depositing and withdrawing cash in amounts below the reporting threshold. This activity is often associated with money laundering and could indicate human trafficking activity.

Red flag C suggests unusual activity that may be indicative of human trafficking, such as lodging and food payments made at unusual hours or in unusual patterns. This type of activity could indicate that the business is being used as a front for human trafficking or that the individuals involved in the trafficking are using the business to facilitate their activities.

 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.

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

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 businessrelationship 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.

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

The USA PATRIOT Act of 20011 is a comprehensive anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation that grants various powers and authorities to the US government to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. Among its provisions, Title III of the Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 20012, specifically addresses the issue of correspondent banking and the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing through foreign banks that maintain accounts with US banks. Section 319 of Title III3 authorizes the US Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a subpoena or summons to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the US, and to request any records relating to such account, including records maintained outside the US. Furthermore, Section 319(b) of Title III4 allows the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the foreign bank fails to comply with such a subpoena or summons, or if the US authorities initiate a civil forfeiture action against the funds in the correspondent account. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is the correct answer, as it enables the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the correspondent account is found to have facilitated a transaction involving tainted funds.

The most important consideration when deciding whether to recommend closing the account is the institution’s anti-money laundering policy. This is because the policy should provide clear and consistent criteria for account closure decisions, based on the risk assessment, the nature and severity of the suspicious activity, the customer due diligence information, and the legal and regulatory obligations of the institution. The policy should also ensure that the account closure process is independent, objective, and transparent, and that it does not compromise the confidentiality of the suspicious transaction report or the investigation.

=

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2, page 1971

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 5.4, video time 9:00-10:302

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 145, page 2863

Reviewing parameter settings based on the latest risk assessment should be included in the evaluation of system settings for anti-money laundering alert surveillance. This is because parameter settings determine the thresholds and criteria for generating alerts based on the risk profile of the customers, products, services, channels, and jurisdictions involved in the transactions. A risk assessment is a periodic and comprehensiveanalysis of the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks faced by an organization, and it should inform the design and implementation of an effective anti-money laundering program, including the alert surveillance system. By aligning the parameter settings with the risk assessment, an organization can ensure that the system is capturing the most relevant and high-risk transactions, and reducing the number of false positives or irrelevant alerts.

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 37-38.

Implementing AML Transaction Monitoring Systems: Critical Considerations, page 2-3.

3 techniques to improve AML transaction monitoring strategies, page 2.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), FIUs are central agencies that receive, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligence to support the detection and prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes1. FIUs have different legal powers and functions depending on their type and jurisdiction, but generally they can use various investigative techniques, such as requesting additional information from reporting entities, accessing databases, conducting analysis, and issuing guidance12. FIUs also have access to a wide range of financial information, such as suspicious activity reports, currency transaction reports, cross-border cash declarations, and other relevant data sources, to identify and assess potential illicit activities13. Moreover, FIUs can cooperate and exchange information with domestic andforeign counterparts, subject to certain legal and operational safeguards, to facilitate cross-border investigations and prosecutions of financial crimes14.

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001, is a comprehensive legislation that aims to enhance the US government’s ability to combat terrorism, money laundering, and other criminal activities. One of the aspects of the Act that has extraterritorial reach is the requirement for US financial institutions (FIs) to apply certain due diligence and reporting obligations to their correspondent accounts and private banking accounts for foreign FIs and non-US persons, respectively12. These obligations are intended to prevent foreign FIs and individuals from using the US financial system to facilitate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose special measures, such as recordkeeping, reporting, or prohibitions, on certain foreign jurisdictions, FIs, or transactions that are found to be of primary money laundering concern34. These special measures can have significant impact on the access and operations of foreign FIs and persons in the US financial market.

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, Section 3121

2: 31 CFR 1010.610 - Due diligence programs for correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions2

3: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, Section 3113

4: 31 CFR 1010.651 - Imposition of special measure against foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions, classes of international transactions, or types of accounts of primary money laundering concern4

Senior management and AML officers may face personal liability if they knowingly allow AML violations to persist.

Option A (Correct):If senior management or the AML officer was aware of violations and failed to act, they could face regulatory or criminal liability.

Option B (Incorrect):Criminal liability depends on intent and negligence—an AML officer is not automatically prosecuted because a bank receives a regulatory order.

Option C (Incorrect):Liability extends beyond the AML officer—other senior executives can also be held accountable.

Option D (Incorrect):Violations can result in both civil and criminal prosecution, depending on the severity.

Legal Risks for AML Compliance Failures:

Civil penalties (fines and sanctions) for AML program deficiencies.

Criminal charges if executives knowingly ignore violations.

Regulatory enforcement actions leading to license revocation.

 the internal investigation did not examine the brokerage account, which could be a potential source of money laundering. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the common methods of money laundering is to use securities brokers to move funds through the purchase and sale of stocks, bonds, or other instruments1. The customer’s frequent transfers from the business account to the brokerage account, and the increased volume of activity in the business account, could indicate that the customer is trying to disguise the origin or ownership of illicit funds by investing them in money market securities. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should recommend the internal investigator to concentrate on the trades made in the brokerage account, and to look for any signs of market manipulation, insider trading, or unusual patterns of transactions1.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 55-56.

The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the internationalfinancial system. The FATF conducts mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regimes1.

The FATF defines effectiveness as "the extent to which a country’s AML/CFT regime is achieving the defined outcomes of an effective regime that allows them to mitigate their risks and threats of ML/TF"2. The FATF assesses effectiveness based on 11 immediate outcomes, which are grouped into three thematic goals: financial system integrity, legal system and operational issues, and international cooperation2.

One of the immediate outcomes under the financial system integrity goal is that “FIs adequately apply preventive measures commensurate with their risks, and report suspicious transactions” (IO.4)2. This outcome measures how well FIs implement the FATF Recommendations on customer due diligence, record-keeping, internal controls, risk assessment, and suspicious transaction reporting. These preventive measures are essential for FIs to identify and mitigate the risks of being misused for money laundering or terrorist financing, and to provide useful information to the authorities for investigation and prosecution2.

Therefore, the correct answer is D. FIs adequately apply preventive measures, as this is one of the FATF characteristics used to assess a country’s effectiveness of its AML regime.

FATF Methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems

An effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing

 The compliance officer should provide a high level summary of the activity and the interactions with law enforcement to the board of directors, as this would be the most appropriate way to escalate the information without compromising the confidentiality of the STR or the ongoing investigation. Providing a copy of the STR or the letter from law enforcement could expose the bank to legal risks or jeopardize the investigation. Informing the regulator to bring it up with the board would not be sufficient, as the compliance officer has the responsibility to report directly to the board on significant compliance issues.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.3: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.3:Reporting to Senior Management and the Board2

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act allows U.S. authorities to seize funds from correspondent accounts held by foreign banks in the U.S.

Option A (Correct):Section 319(b) grants the U.S. government authority to seize assets in U.S. correspondent bank accounts belonging to foreign financial institutions involved in illicit activities.

Option B (Incorrect):Section 314(b) facilitates voluntary information sharing among financial institutions but does not authorize asset seizure.

Option C (Incorrect):Section 314(a) relates to law enforcement requests for financial intelligence, not asset seizures.

Option D (Incorrect):Section 319(a) concerns record-keeping requirements for foreign banks but does not authorize asset seizures.

Best Practices for Foreign Banks with U.S. Correspondent Accounts:

Ensure full AML compliance to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

Avoid processing high-risk transactions that may trigger U.S. jurisdiction.

Monitor cross-border transactions to detect potential financial crime exposure.

Senior management bears the ultimate responsibility for approving a financial institution's relationship with a politically exposed person (PEP). The institution must ensure that appropriate measures are taken to manage the risks associated with a PEP, including conducting enhanced due diligence and applying appropriate mitigating measures. The relationship manager and the OKYC analyst may identify the risks associated with the PEP and recommend mitigating measures, but it is ultimately the responsibility of senior management to approve therelationship and ensure that the appropriate measures are taken. The enhanced due diligence compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that all due diligence requirements are met.

 According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, one of the channels for the exchange of information between FIUs is the Egmont Secure Web (ESW), which is a secure and encrypted communication system that allows FIUs to share information and expertise1. The ESW is accessible to all members of the FIU who have been authorized by the FIU head or his/her delegate1. The other options are not correct because:

B. Information sharing is not always conducted according to processes contained in Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). The Egmont Group encourages FIUs to exchange information regardless of the existence of an MOU1.

C. Intelligence is not shared via messaging applications. This would not be a secure or reliable way of exchanging sensitive information.

D. Investigators are not allowed to request information from a foreign FIU directly. Requests for information must be made through the FIU of the requesting country1.

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units | FinCEN.gov

The Egmont Group of The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units

Certain corporate structuresobscure beneficial ownership, making themattractive for money laundering.

Option A (Correct):Nominee shareholders and directors conceal the true owners of a company, increasing AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Bearer shares allow ownership to be transferred anonymously, making it difficult to trace transactions.

Option E (Correct):Private investment companies in tax havens with strict secrecy laws enable illicit fund movements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):A private company that does not operate in a tax haven presents lower ML risk.

Option D (Incorrect):A foreign LLC is not necessarily high-risk unless linked to a secrecy jurisdiction.

Best Practices for Identifying High-Risk Corporate Structures:

Require full disclosure of beneficial ownership.

Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) on tax-haven entities.

Monitor for unusual cross-border transactions.

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.

= 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.

In accordance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards [1][2], when the minimum AML requirements of the host country where a financial institution (Fl) operates are less strict than those of the Fl's home country, the Fl is required to ensure that their branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in host countries implement the requirements of the home country, to the extent that host country laws and regulations permit. This means that the Fl should not impose more strict requirements on host country branches, disregarding if host country laws and regulation permit such action, and should not close down its operations in the host countries where minimum AML requirements are less strict than those of the home country. However, the Fl should always apply additional measures on their branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in host countries to manage the money laundering and terrorist financing risk overseas.

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and charities are at risk of being exploited for terrorist financing due to their access to large sums of money and their operational reach into high-risk areas. FATF’sRecommendation 8specifically recognizes that terrorist organizations may misuse NPOs to raise and move funds, provide logistical support, or conceal the diversion of funds for illicit purposes.

Option A (Correct):Many charities operate internationally, especially in areas with humanitarian crises. These regions often overlap with locations where terrorist organizations are active, making them vulnerable to abuse.

Option D (Correct):Charities handle large volumes of cash and enjoy public trust, which makes it easier for illicit actors to integrate illicit funds without raising immediate suspicion.

Option B (Incorrect):While charities are generally legitimate, the concern is that they can be exploited, not that they necessarily intend to misuse funds.

Option C (Incorrect):Although collecting donations is a legitimate practice, it does not directly contribute to their vulnerability to terrorist financing.

A customer visiting multiple branches of the MSB on the same day in order to transfer funds internationally is a potential indicator of structuring, which is a technique used by money launderers to avoid reporting thresholds or detection by authorities. A customer attempting to buy money orders under $3,000 USD in cash multiple times a day is also apossible sign of structuring, as well as an attempt to evade the identification and recordkeeping requirements for MSBs. Both scenarios should be included in the procedures for further review by the AML Officer.

BSA/AML Risk Assessment for Money Services Businesses (MSBs), section “Risk Factors”, sub-section “Structuring”: “Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a specific pattern calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the BSA and/or 31 CFR Chapter X. Structuring is illegal and is often indicative of money laundering or other illicit activity.”

Money Services Business (MSB) — AML Compliance Guide, section “AML Compliance Requirements for MSBs”, sub-section “Identification and Recordkeeping”: “MSBs must verify the identity of any person who conducts a transaction of $3,000 or more. They must also keep records of the transaction, including the name, address, date of birth, and identification number of the customer, as well as the amount, date, and method of payment.”

TheBoard of Directorsholdsultimate responsibilityforAML/CFT compliance and governance.

Option B (Correct):TheBoardmustoversee, approve, and ensure AML programs are effective.

Option A (Incorrect):TheCOO manages operations, butdoes not hold ultimate accountability.

Option C (Incorrect):While theAML officer executes compliance programs, theBoard provides oversight.

Option D (Incorrect):TheCEO is responsible for strategy, butAML failures fall under Board accountability.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Section 2.2.2 The EU Fourth AML Directive, the release of the EU’s Fourth AML Directive resulted in the threshold for reporting suspicious transactions decreasing from 15,000 EUR to 10,000 EUR (Answer A) and all financial institutions were required to identify and verify the beneficial owner of legal entities (Answer B). The directive also defined money laundering and terrorist financing as separate crimes, which expanded the directive's measures (Answer C). Answer D is incorrect as the scope of obliged entities was not enlarged from casinos to all providers of gambling services, but rather to all providers of payment services. Answer E is also incorrect as the directive does not provide that knowledge of criminal conduct can be inferred from objective factual circumstances. Reference: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Section 2.2.2 The EU Fourth AML Directive, p. 12.

Gatekeepers (e.g., accountants, auditors, lawyers) play a critical role in detecting financial crime.

Option B (Correct):Corporate clientsposehigher money laundering risksdue tocomplex ownership structures and cross-border financial activities.

Option C (Correct):The nature of requested services(e.g.,offshore structuring, large cash transactions) can indicate potentialmoney laundering attempts.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):The length of time a client has been with an accounting firm does not necessarily indicate financial crime risk.

Option D (Incorrect):Short-term relationships may be high-risk, but understanding the business type and services requested is more critical.

Red Flags for Money Laundering in Professional Services:

Clients requesting offshore structures for no apparent business reason.

Use of complex trusts or nominee directors to obscure ownership.

Unexplained large transactions moving through legal or accounting firms.

Best Practices for Gatekeepers to Prevent Money Laundering:

Perform Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) on high-risk clients.

Report unusual financial activity to FIUs.

Follow FATF’s DNFBP (Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions) AML guidelines.

According to the FATF Recommendation 10, financial institutions should conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions being conducted are consistent with the institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds. This is one of the core measures of customer due diligence (CDD) that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

= The main reference for this question is the document titled “International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation - The FATF Recommendations” published by the FATF in February 2018. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the CDD measures and the risk-based approach on the FATF website, the CFATF website, the Central Bank of Ireland website, and the Medium blog.

The Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3MLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. It was adopted in 2005 and repealed by the Fourth European Union Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) in 2015. The 3MLD applies to a range of entities that are considered to be exposed to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Financial institutions, which include credit institutions, financial intermediaries, insurance companies, investment firms, and payment service providers.

Casinos, which include both online and offline gambling services that involve wagering a stake with monetary value.

Real estate agents, which include both natural and legal persons that act as intermediaries in the buying and selling of real property or rights over it.

The 3MLD requires these entities to implement a number of measures to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Conducting customer due diligence, which involves identifying and verifying the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and applying enhanced or simplified measures depending on the level of risk.

Keeping records of customer and transaction data for at least five years after the end of the business relationship or the execution of the transaction.

Reporting suspicious transactions or activities to the competent authorities without delay and without tipping off the customer.

Establishing internal policies, procedures, and controls to ensure compliance with the 3MLD, and providing adequate training and awareness to staff.

Cooperating with the relevant supervisory and regulatory authorities and financial intelligence units.

The 3MLD does not apply to defense attorneys, as they are not considered to be obliged entities under the directive. However, the 3MLD does apply to other legal professionals, such as notaries, lawyers, and accountants, when they perform certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as:

Buying and selling of real property or business entities

Managing of client money, securities, or other assets

Opening or managing bank, savings, or securities accounts

Organizing contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies

Creating, operating, or managing trusts, companies, foundations, or similar structures

THE THIRD EU DIRECTIVE ON MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING, page 11-12

Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, page 1

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 11

V

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a financial institution must take certain steps to fulfill its customer due diligence (CDD) obligations [1][2]. These steps include verifying the customer's identity, understanding the customer's business, and assessing the customer's risk profile. Additionally, the financial institution must verify that the customer is not on any sanction lists, such as the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list. This step is important to ensure that the financial institution is not doing business with any individuals or entities that are subject to economic sanctions. Other steps include obtaining information on the intended nature of the banking relationship, securing a written declaration from the customer confirming the source of the funds, and identifying shareholders listed on the stock exchange of corporate entities holding fifty percent of the shares.

According to the FATF Recommendations, the competent authority that should directly receive suspicious or unusual transaction reports is the financial intelligence unit (FIU). The FIU is a central, national agency responsible for receiving, analyzing and disseminating information related to money laundering and terrorist financing. The FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and should be able to exchange information with other domestic and foreign authorities. The FIU should also provide feedback to the reporting entities on the use and value of their reports.

=

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

FATF Recommendations, Recommendation 29: Financial Intelligence Units

USA PATRIOT Act Section 319(b)gives theU.S. governmentthe power toseize fundsfroma U.S. correspondent bank account held for a foreign bank, if the funds are linked to illicit activity.

Option C (Correct):Section 319(b) explicitly allows asset forfeiturefromforeign correspondent bank accounts in the U.S.

Option A (Incorrect):Section 319(a)grants U.S. regulatorsfaster access to bank records(within120 hours).

Option B (Incorrect):Section 314(a)deals withinformation sharing between banks and law enforcement.

Option D (Incorrect):Section 314(b)allowsbanks to voluntarily share AML information among themselves.

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

 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.

According to the Basel Committee's principles on customer due diligence, banks must obtain the necessary information to establish the identity of their customers, beneficial owners, and any persons acting on behalf of their customers. This includes verifying the identity of the customer and the beneficial owners and assessing the customer's risk profile. Additionally, banks must conduct ongoing due diligence to ensure that the customer does not give rise to suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing [1].

TheUSA PATRIOT Act Section 313 & 319(b)placesstrict requirements on foreign correspondent banking relationshipsto prevent money laundering.

Option A (Correct):Theforeign bank must disclose its ownership structureto identifyultimate beneficial owners (UBOs).

Option C (Correct):Theforeign bank must certify that it maintains a physical presencein a regulated jurisdiction.

Option E (Correct):Theforeign bank must not allow shell banks to use its U.S. correspondent accounts.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Thecertification does not specifically exclude PEPs, butPEPs require enhanced due diligence (EDD).

Option D (Incorrect):The foreign bankmay operate in multiple jurisdictions, but it must be regulated where it has a presence.

Key Compliance Measures for Correspondent Banking:

Conduct EDD on foreign bank relationships.

Ensure correspondent banks do not facilitate shell banks.

Monitor transactions for money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

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.

Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 20221, Section 4.5: Nested Relationships

Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services2, Section 3.2.2: Nested Correspondent Banking Relationships

According to the FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing, FIs should establish sufficient safeguards concerning the confidentiality of information shared for AML purposes, both within the same financial group and between FIs not belonging to the same group. These safeguards include ensuring that the information is shared only with authorized personnel who have a need to know, that the information is used only for the intended AML purpose, and that the information is protected from unauthorized access, disclosure, or misuse. FIs should also comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements on data protection and privacy, and respect the rights and interests of the customers whose information is shared1.

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

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”.

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

' - 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 U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. OFAC publishes lists of individuals and entities that are subject to various sanctions programs, such as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (SSI List), and the Foreign Sanctions Evaders List (FSE List). These lists are updated frequently and can be accessed through OFAC’s website or other sources12.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. FATF publishes lists of jurisdictions that have strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) regimes, and calls on its members and other countries to apply enhanced due diligence or counter-measures to protect themselves from the risks emanating from these jurisdictions. These lists are updated periodically and can be accessed through FATF’s website or other sources34.

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Sanctions, p. 63-64 2: U.S. Department of theTreasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: FATF Recommendations, p. 77-78 4: Financial Action Task Force,

Money laundering can have serious consequences for financial institutions. They may face increased investigation costs and fines from regulators and law enforcement agencies for failing to detect or prevent money laundering activities. Additionally, money laundering can result in a loss of profitable business as customers and counterparties may no longer want to do business with the institution due to its reputation for being associated with illicit activity.

According to the FATF Recommendations, financial institutions should maintain all necessary records on transactions and customers for at least five years, and make them available to competent authorities upon appropriate authority1. This includes records and documents related to suspicious transactions that have been reported to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) or other designated authorities. Providing the supporting documentation to competent authorities upon request is essential for the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing offences, as well as for the identification and tracing of criminal assets2.

Hinting to the customer that she should come in and explain her behavior is not a correct answer, as it may tip off the customer about the suspicion and compromise the effectiveness of the reporting system. Financial institutions should not disclose to the customer or to third parties that a suspicious transaction report (STR) or related information is being reported to the FIU3.

Maintaining adequate written documentation of all individuals and transactions reported is not a sufficient answer, as it does not imply cooperation with competent authorities. Financial institutions should not only keep records, but also provide them to the authorities when requested.

Submitting information upon receiving a legal request from parties involved in a civil lawsuit is not a relevant answer, as it does not relate to the cooperation with competent authorities for AML/CFT purposes. Civil lawsuits are not part of the AML/CFT framework, and financial institutions should not disclose confidential information to private parties without proper legal grounds.

FATF Recommendation 11: Record-keeping 1

FATF Recommendation 31: Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities 2

FATF Recommendation 21: Tipping-off and confidentiality 3

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision standards, the following statements best describe sound practices in relation to customer due diligence (CDD) policies and procedures:

Banks should take into consideration the occasional banking transaction or the size/level of assets to build an understanding of the customer’s profile and behavior. This is because the nature and frequency of transactions and the size of the account balance may indicate the level of risk associated with the customer and the need for ongoing monitoring1

Banks should develop and implement clear acceptance policies and procedures to identify the types of customer that are likely to pose a higher risk of financing terrorism or money laundering. This is because banks should not enter into or maintain relationships with customers who pose unacceptable risks to the bank or the financial system. Banks should also apply a risk-based approach to CDD and apply more stringent measures to higher-risk customers12

Banks should implement enhanced due diligence measures for entering business relationships with high-risk customers, such as approval by senior management. This is because banks should ensure that they have adequate information and controls to manage the risks posed by such customers and to comply with the relevant laws and regulations. Senior management should be involved in the decision-making process and be accountable for the outcomes12

 1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Consolidated KYC Risk Management, October 2004, page 6-7. 2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, page 8-9.

ASuspicious Activity Report (SAR)is required when afinancial institution detects activity that raises suspicion of money laundering, terrorist financing, or fraud.

Option A (Correct):Inability to verify customer identification documentsis ared flag for potential financial crimeand may requirereporting to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

Option B (Incorrect):PEPs require enhanced due diligence (EDD), but their involvement alone does not automatically trigger a SAR.

Option C (Incorrect):Dealers in precious metals/stones are high-risk, but being in this industry alonedoes not warrant an automatic SAR.

Option D (Incorrect):Crypto-to-fiat transactions are not inherently suspicious, but they requiremonitoring for unusual activity.

Key SAR Filing Triggers:

Transactions that do not match the customer’s expected activity.

Incomplete, fraudulent, or unverifiable customer identification.

Use of shell companies or unusual intermediaries.

Large or structured transactions with no apparent legitimate purpose.

Best Practices for SAR Compliance:

Implement robust customer due diligence (CDD) processes.

Monitor transaction behavior against expected patterns.

Follow jurisdictional SAR filing deadlines to avoid penalties.

A fundraising organization is a type of non-profit organization that may be vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as they often operate in high-risk areas, deal with large amounts of cash, and have complex and opaque structures. Therefore, a fundraising organization warrants enhanced due diligence, which is a higher level of customer verification and monitoring that goes beyond the standard customer due diligence measures. Enhanced due diligence may include obtaining additional information on the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, the beneficiaries, and the governance of the organization.

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, p. 33-34

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

Customer due diligence | The Law Society

the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has the authority to prohibit or reject any trade or financial transactions involving specified countries, entities, and individuals that are subject to U.S. economic sanctions, unless such transactions are authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC. This applies to transactions that occur within the U.S. territory, as well as transactions that involve U.S. persons, U.S. goods, or the U.S. financial system, regardless of where they take place. This is one of the key aspects of OFAC’s extraterritorial reach, which means that OFAC can enforce its sanctions programs beyond the U.S. borders.

Home | Office of Foreign Assets Control, section “Mission”: “The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The Aggressive Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Economic Sanctions: Foreign Company Exposure to OFAC Enforcement, section “A. Bases for OFAC jurisdiction over foreign parties”, paragraph 1: “One key aspect of the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s extraterritorial reach includes the blocking of certain non-United States initiated transactions for or through the United States (U.S.) for benefit of a restricted person or entity.”

The global reach of OFAC sanctions, section “The global reach of OFAC sanctions”, paragraph 1: “OFAC sanctions are trade and economic sanctions administered by The U.S. Treasury Department’sOffice of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). They are often intended to have extra-territorial effect, meaning that they apply outside the U.S. territory. In some instances a connection with the U.S. territory is required.”

"Prohibit or reject unlicensed trade and financial transactions with specified countries,

entities, and individuals. "

B: If a bank fails to demonstrate sustained improvement or cannot resolve identified deficiencies, it can face civil or even criminal penalties from regulators. Regulators expect not just policy changes, but proof of effectiveness and ongoing compliance improvements.

C: Even after addressing many concerns, if all issues are not resolved—such as outstanding transaction monitoring backlogs—regulators may issue orders to further remediate the AML program until full compliance is achieved.

CAMS 6th Edition and regulatory guidance clarify that “regulators may impose penalties, issue consent orders, or require further remediation where weaknesses persist.”

Incorrect:

A: Secondary sanctions generally apply to sanctions violations, not standard AML program weaknesses.

D: Regulatory actions can be public and do pose reputational risk.

E: While transparency is sometimes required, this is not a universal regulatory response.

Along-term, root cause-based approach ensures AML deficiencies are fully remediated.

Option C (Correct):Addressing root causes ensures the institution remains compliant and prevents recurring violations.

Option A (Incorrect):Consulting with an FIU is unnecessary for internal remediation plans.

Option B (Incorrect):Short-term fixes do not resolve systemic AML issues.

Option D (Incorrect):AML compliance improvements may require investment—cost-cutting should not compromise compliance.

Best Practices for AML Audit Remediation:

Conduct root cause analysis before implementing corrective measures.

Develop a long-term compliance improvement plan.

Allocate sufficient resources for sustainable AML enhancements.

 the bank teller should not provide any information to the police officer without consulting the compliance officer first. The compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank follows the applicable laws and regulations regarding customer privacy, dataprotection, and anti-money laundering. The compliance officer can verify the authenticity and validity of the request, determine the appropriate response, and obtain any necessary approvals or authorizations before releasing any information. The bank teller should not reject the request outright, as this could be seen as uncooperative or obstructive. The bank teller should also not provide the information after management approval, as this could bypass the compliance officer’s role and expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks.

Bank Records and Financial Privacy Laws - FindLaw1

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS2

What is the Difference Between Smurfing and Structuring?3

The FATF communicates its findings regardingjurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies by issuing two formal documents three times per year, namely the FATF Public Statement and the Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: On-going Process document1. These documents identify the jurisdictions that have serious and/or systemic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes and the progress they have made in addressing them. The FATF also calls on its members and other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures or enhanced due diligence measures to protect the international financial system from the risks emanating from these jurisdictions1.

=

1: High-risk and other monitored jurisdictions - Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

The charity frequently withdrawing cash from the bank indicates possible terrorist financing, as cash transactions are often used to conceal the source, destination, and purpose of funds. Cash transactions also make it difficult to trace the flow of funds and identify the beneficiaries. Terrorist financiers may use charities as a cover to collect and distribute funds for their activities, and may exploit the cash-based nature of charitable donations to avoid detection12.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the red flags for money laundering in real estate transactions is the use of an appraiser who is not on the approved list of the financial institution. This could indicate a possible collusion between the appraiser and the borrower or the underwriter to inflate the value of the property and obtain a higher loan amount. The anti-money laundering specialist should document the underwriter’s actions and the reasons for approving the exception, as well as the discrepancy between the appraised value and the market value of theproperty. The specialist should then file a suspicious transaction report (STR) to the relevant authorities, as required by the local regulations .

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 7: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 201.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 8: Anti-Money Laundering Programs, page 227.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 9: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, page 255.

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.

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

The Egmont Group is an international body of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) from around the world. Its primary purpose is to serve as a forum for FIUs to exchange information, and it also sets international standards for AML/CFT measures. Additionally, the Egmont Group does not serve as a prudential regulator for global financial institutions or as an authoritative body in the field of anti-corruption.

The bank’s current anti-money laundering program is inadequate because it does not include a process for monitoring customer account activity, which is a key component of detecting and reporting suspicious transactions. The fact that the consultant and the bank have mutual clients does not affect the risk rating of those customers, nor does it justify a lower level of scrutiny. The bank should revise its procedures to ensure that it has a comprehensive and risk-based approach to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and reporting.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 67-69.

FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: Legal Professionals, pp. 10-11, 19-20.

BSA/AML Internal Audit: PwC, pp. 1-2.

Correspondent banking relationshipspresent high money laundering risks, requiringenhanced due diligence (EDD)when monitoringcross-border transactions.

Option B (Correct):Verifying that neither the sender nor the receiver is on a sanctions list is a mandatory AML check.

Option C (Correct):Requesting invoices and contracts helps establish the legitimacy of the transactionandensures funds are being used for their stated purpose.

Option D (Correct):Conducting adverse media checkscan revealpast financial crime links or regulatory issuesrelated to the sender or beneficiary.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Calling the individual is not a standard AML procedureandmay violate privacy laws.

Option E (Incorrect):314(b) information sharing applies only to U.S. financial institutions—the bankshould first conduct its internal review before escalating internationally.

Best Practices for Investigating Suspicious Correspondent Banking Transactions:

Check for links to known money laundering typologies.

Verify business relationships using supporting documentation.

Ensure transaction transparency through KYC/CDD measures.

This information can be found in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) study guide, 6th edition, under the section on Unusual Customer Identification Scenarios. The guide explains that two indicators that should be included in awareness training for unusual customer identification scenarios are:

A. The customer opens the account in the name of a family member who begins making large deposits.

This is an indicator of potential structuring, where a customer may be attempting to avoid triggering reporting thresholds by depositing funds in smaller amounts over time. It is important for staff to be aware of this scenario and to monitor accounts for potential suspicious activity.

B. The customer's name and home address cannot be verified.

This is an indicator of potential identity theft or other fraudulent activity. If a customer's identifying information cannot be verified, it is important for staff to conduct additional due diligence to ensure that the customer is legitimate and that the account is not being used for illicit purposes.

Customer due diligence (CDD) is a key component of anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) compliance. CDD helps financial institutions identify and verify their customers, assess their risk levels, and monitor their transactions for suspicious activity.

One of the main objectives of CDD is to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships, which involves collecting and analyzing relevant information about the customer’s business activities, expected transaction patterns, source and destination of funds, and beneficial ownership. This information helps financial institutions develop a customer risk profile, which is a tool to measure and manage the risk exposure of each customer.

A customer risk profile reflects the financial institution’s risk appetite, which is the level and type of risk that the institution is willing and able to accept. By comparing the customer’s risk profile with the institution’s risk appetite, the institution can determine if the customer operates in line with the firm’s expectations and requirements for a specific industry segment. For example, if the institution has a low risk appetite for customers involved in high-risk sectors such as gambling, cryptocurrency, or arms trade, it can use the customer risk profile to identify and mitigate any potential risks associated with such customers.

Therefore, to understand if the customer operates in line with the firm’s risk appetite for a specific industry segment, a financial institution must obtain sufficient customer information to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the only body with the legal authority under international law to impose binding sanctions on countries, entities, or individuals.

“The Security Council’s primary function in imposing sanctions is to maintain or restore international peace and security. These sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: International Sanctions and Proliferation Financing; United Nations Charter, Article 41)

Incorrect Options:

B: Sanctions may address AML/CFT failings, but the core mandate is international peace/security.

C: The UNSC does not primarily conduct research or impact analysis.

D: The purpose is international peace/security, not only domestic financial stability.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks Paper recommends that banks should verify the bank has a physical presence in the country where it is incorporated and confirm the bank is subject to regulatory supervision with adequate anti-money laundering laws before opening a correspondent account. These steps are intended to prevent the establishment of relationships with shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group. Shell banks pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to hide the identity and source of funds, evade regulatory oversight, and facilitate illicit transactions. Therefore, banks should conduct enhanced due diligence on correspondent banks that operate in offshore jurisdictions, where the regulatory standards and transparency may be lower or insufficient.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, p. 1091

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.2, p. 52

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer Due Diligence for Banks, October 2001, p. 13-143

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.

A: The absence of professional oversight or accounting/auditing standards creates a high-risk environment for financial statement manipulation. Without external checks or mandated standards, criminals can more easily falsify statements to hide illicit assets.

“The lack of regulatory oversight and professional standards in accounting and auditing significantly increases the risk of manipulation and fraud in financial reporting.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Professional Service Providers; FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Accountants)

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.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

Understanding Money Laundering in Casinos | ComplyAdvantage2

Casino Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators - Alessa3

Art and Antiquities: Conduits for Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Why Fight the Antiquities Trade?

More recently, groups like Daesh (Islamic State [IS]), al-Qaida, the Taliban and their affiliates have been engaged in ****cultural racketeering and terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, converting patrimony into cash for weapons and troops****.

As Terrorists Diversify Fundraising Tactics, Greater Efforts Needed to Shut Down Illicit Channels, Secretary-General Tells Finance Ministers’ Meeting

Terrorists continue to adapt their tactics and diversify their funding sources. Today, Da’esh runs a multi-million-dollar economy in territories under its control. Da’esh terrorists raise money through the oil trade, extortion, undetected cash couriers, kidnapping for ransom, trafficking of humans and arms and racketeering. They loot and sell precious cultural property, shamelessly profiting from the destruction of humanity’s common heritage.

Paying premium several years in advance and terminating early for a refund (A):“A typical red flag is when a policyholder pays large premiums up front and then seeks early termination to receive a refund. This can be used to launder illicit funds by integrating them into the financial system and then retrieving ‘clean’ money.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Life Insurance ML/TF Risks; FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector)

Regularly switching policies and accepting penalties (D):“Frequent changes in insurance policies or products, even at a financial loss, are considered suspicious. This may indicate an attempt to obscure the money trail or integrate illicit proceeds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, ML/TF Red Flags in Life Insurance)

Incorrect Options:

B: Having multiple policies is common and not itself a red flag.

C: High premiums/payouts are not inherently suspicious.

E: Beneficiary payouts to elderly people are not ML/TF red flags.

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.

ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.

What Is An AML Officer1

Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts 2

Theart and antiquities marketis frequently exploited formoney laundering and terrorist financing.

Option A (Correct):Art storage facilities in tax-free zonesallowanonymous transactions, creatinghigh AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Third-party art advisorscan be used asintermediariestoobscure true ownership.

Option D (Correct):Selling art on social mediawithout proper vetting allows foranonymous transactions.

Option B (Incorrect):Paying fair market valuedoes not indicatesuspicious activity.

Option E (Incorrect):Authenticity verificationdoes notincrease AML risk.

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.

 Structuring transactions is a common method of money laundering, where cash deposits or withdrawals are broken down into smaller amounts to avoid reporting or record-keeping requirements. Employees who unintentionally assist customers in structuring transactions may not be aware of the legal and regulatory implications of their actions, or may have been misled or coerced by the customers. Therefore, the most appropriate and proportionate response is to provide remedial training to these employees, to ensure they understand the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, the red flags of suspicious activity, and their reporting obligations. Terminating, contacting law enforcement, or transferring these employees may be excessive, premature, or ineffective measures, depending on the circumstances and the level of involvement of the employees.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 31.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.3: Structuring and Smurfing.

While this behavior may warrant scrutiny in certain circumstances, it is not inherently suspicious or indicative of money laundering. In contrast, the other behaviors listed (living beyond one's means, excessive unresolved exceptions, and using company resources for personal gain) may suggest that an employee is engaging in or facilitating money laundering activity.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a US agency that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC has a list of sanctions programs and country information for various regions and topics, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and more2. If a charity is headquartered in a country on the OFAC list, it means that the US government has imposed restrictions or prohibitions on transactions or dealings with that country, its government, entities, or individuals. This poses a high risk of violating the sanctions regulations and exposing the bank to legal, regulatory, or reputational consequences. Therefore, the bank may decide to terminate the banking relationship with the charity to avoid such risks.

The other options are not sufficient reasons to terminate the banking relationship, as they may not indicate illegal or suspicious activities by the charity. A high turnover rate of official positions may be due to various factors, such as organizational changes, staff turnover, or personal reasons. It does not necessarily imply that the charity is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. However, the bank should verify the identity and authority of the new officials and update the customer due diligence information accordingly. The charity may have several incoming international funds transfers because it receives donations or grants from different sources or countries. This is not unusual for an international charity, as long as the funds are consistent with its stated purpose and activities. The bank should monitor the transactions and report any anomalies or red flags to the relevant authorities. The flow of funds both in and out may be complex and hard to trace because the charity operates in multiple jurisdictions or sectors, or has a decentralized or layered structure. This may increase the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but it does not necessarily mean that the charity is engaged in such activities. The bank should conduct enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the charity’s transactions and beneficiaries, and apply a risk-based approach to mitigate the potential risks.

 1: Sanctions List Search Tool | Office of Foreign Assets Control 2: Sanctions Programs and Country Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury

Terminating customer relationships due toAML risksrequiresclear procedures and documentation.

Option B (Correct):Astandardized termination procedureensurescompliance, fairness, and consistency.

Option C (Correct):Afinal review of transactionshelps identifysuspicious activity before closure.

Option D (Correct):Documenting termination decisionsprotects the FI fromlegal and regulatory risks.

Option A (Incorrect):Whileclear communication is important, termination decisions should beconsistent and policy-driven.

Option E (Incorrect):Customers should benotified appropriatelybut not necessarilyaftertermination.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation issued by the European Union (EU) that sets out requirements for the processing and protection of personal data. It applies to any company that processes personal data of individuals in the EU, and requires organizations to take appropriate measures to protect the personal data of individuals, such as implementing appropriate security measures, limiting the amount of data collected and stored, and providing clear explanations of how the data will be used. In the context of financial crime investigations, the GDPR requires organizations to ensure the security and confidentiality of personal data that they collect and process, and to take measures to ensure that the data is used only for the purpose of the investigation and not for any other purpose.

According to a report by the OECD, government officers are among the occupations that are particularly vulnerable to the use of false identities and identity theft. This is because government officers have access to sensitive and confidential information, such as personal data, tax records, social security benefits, passports, visas, and licenses. Identity fraudsters may target government officers to obtain or alter such information, or to impersonate them to access restricted areas or systems. Identity fraud involving government officers may facilitate tax evasion, money laundering, corruption, terrorism, and other crimes1.

Some examples of identity fraud schemes involving government officers are:

Rogue agents in the immigration services sector who issue fake or fraudulent documents, such as passports, visas, orresidence permits, to facilitate the entry or stay of illegal immigrants, criminals, or terrorists12.

Corrupt tax officials who use false identities to create fictitious taxpayers or employers, or to modify tax records, to evade taxes or to claim fraudulent refunds or credits13.

Impostors who pose as government officers, such as police, customs, or revenue agents, to extort money or information from unsuspecting victims, or to access secure facilities or databases1 .

REPORT ON IDENTITY FRAUD: TAX EVASION AND MONEY LAUNDERING VULNERABILITIES

Identity Fraud and Immigration Services

Identity Theft and Tax Fraud

[Identity Theft and Government Impersonation Scams]

The first line training program is the training that is provided to the employees who are directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the business, such as sales, customerservice, or compliance staff1. The first line training program should cover the essential knowledge and skills that are required for the employees to perform their roles effectively and in compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) policies and procedures of the organization2. The first line training program should also be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the business environment, the regulatory framework, the customer base, the products and services, or the risk assessment of the organization2.

Among the four activities listed, the one that would require an update to the first line training program is the expansion to customer segments that will utilize newly established products. This is because the new customer segments and products may pose different or higher AML/CFT risks than the existing ones, and the employees need to be aware of these risks and how to mitigate them. For example, the new customer segments may include politically exposed persons, non-resident customers, or high-net-worth individuals, who may have higher exposure to corruption, tax evasion, or fraud risks3. The new products may include prepaid cards, mobile payments, or cryptocurrencies, which may have higher vulnerability to money laundering, terrorist financing, or cybercrime risks. Therefore, the first line training program should be updated to include the relevant information and guidance on how to identify, verify, monitor, and report these new customer segments and products, and how to apply the appropriate customer due diligence and transaction monitoring measures2.

The other three activities do not necessarily require an update to the first line training program, unless they involve significant changes in the AML/CFT policies and procedures of the organization. The implementation of a new system that provides information for monitoring customer accounts may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing AML/CFT processes, but it does not change the nature or level of the AML/CFT risks. The maintenance of regulatory requirements for onboarding documentation collections of a customer base is a routine and ongoing task that should already be covered by the existing first line training program. The onboarding of a new customer type which was previously reviewed and risk rated does not introduce any new AML/CFT risks, as long as the risk rating and the corresponding controls are consistent with the organization’s risk appetite and policy.

1: What is First Line of Defense? | Definition and Overview

2: Training and Awareness | FATF

3: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) | FATF

Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers | FATF

 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 institutionto align its AML strategy with its business objectives, and avoid potential reputational damage or regulatory sanctions.

9 Things to Consider When Evaluating an AML Solution

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 38.

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 ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the four pillars of an effective anti-money laundering compliance program is the training of appropriate employees on their responsibilities and the institution’s policies and procedures. Training is essential to ensure that employees are aware of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, the applicable laws and regulations, the red flags and indicators of suspicious activity, and the reporting and record-keeping requirements. Without proper training, employees may not be able to perform their duties effectively and efficiently, and may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.4, page 39.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.1.4.

The inherent level of anti-money laundering risk across the entire organization depends on various factors, such as the nature, size, complexity, and structure of the business, the customers, the products and services, and the countries or jurisdictions involved. Among the four options given, the transaction monitoring program and the customer due diligence program are not factors that determine the inherent risk, but rather measures that mitigate the risk. Therefore, they are not relevant for the compliance officer’s purpose. The countries that the bank operates in and the products and services offered by the bank are important factors that affect the inherent risk, as they may expose the bank to different levels of money laundering threats, vulnerabilities, and regulatory requirements. For example, some countries or jurisdictions have high levels of corruption, unstable governments, or are known as money laundering havens1. They could also have inadequate AML/CFT regulatory and judicial frameworks, or be subject to economic sanctions2. Similarly, some products and services may pose higher risks thanothers, such as those that involve cash transactions, cross-border transfers, anonymous or non-face-to-face customers, or complex or innovative features34.

=

1: AML risk-rating models | McKinsey

2: Money laundering and terrorist financing risks - Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

4: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage

5: Anti Money Laundering Risk Assessment - Financial Crime Academy

 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 partof 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.

 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 andownership 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.

An offshore company is a legal entity that is incorporated or registered in a foreign jurisdiction, usually with low or no taxes, high confidentiality, and minimal regulation1. Offshore companies are often used to hide beneficial ownership, as they can create complex and opaque structures that obscure the identity and control of the real owners and beneficiaries of the assets or transactions involved2. Offshore companies can also use nominee directors and shareholders, trust and company service providers, and shell companies to further conceal beneficial ownership3. According to the web search results, offshore companies are among the most common vehicles for money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, and other illicit activities4 .

1: What is an offshore company? - ACAMS

2: Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership - FATF

3: Concealment of Beneficial Ownership - FATF-Egmont Group

4: What’s a Beneficial Owner and Why Does it Matter? - Dun & Bradstreet

The Panama Papers: Exposing the Rogue Offshore Finance Industry - ICIJ

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a department of the U.S. Treasury that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC regulations cover all persons and entities within the U.S., all U.S.-domiciled entities and their foreign branches, and all U.S. citizens, wherever located or employed2. These include U.S. banks, U.S. corporations, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, U.S. residents, and U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad3. OFAC regulations do not cover foreign-based entities that have U.S. customers, unless they are owned or controlled by U.S. persons or entities4.

 1: Home | Office of Foreign Assets Control 2: eCFR :: 31 CFR Chapter V – Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Office of Foreign Assets Control - Office of Foreign Assets Control 4: Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC): Definition, Sanctions

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers based in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature is the use of a money trader to ensure that the revenue from drug sales in the U.S.doesn’t actually 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 cartels12. The BMPE involves six distinct steps:

Obtaining criminal proceeds: The drug cartels sell drugs for dollars in the U.S.

Involvement of intermediary services: The drug cartels sell the dollars to black market peso exchangers in Colombia at a discounted rate.

Identification of complicit companies: The black market peso exchangers identify exporting companies in the U.S. and importing companies in South America that are willing to participate in the scheme.

Placement of funds: The black market peso exchangers deposit the dollars into U.S. bank accounts or use money service businesses or other methods to transfer the funds.

Layering of funds: The black market peso exchangers use the funds to purchase monetary instruments such as checks, money orders, or wire transfers, or to pay for the goods ordered by the South American importers.

Integration of funds: The South American importers receive the goods or the monetary instruments and use them to pay for their imports or to sell them for pesos in the local market.

1: Black Market Peso Exchange in Money Laundering - Financial Crime Academy

2: Overview - FinCEN.gov

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is an international body that sets standards and guidelines for the prudential regulation of banks. One of its key publications is the Customer Due Diligence for Banks, which outlines the essential elements of Know Your Customer (KYC) standards for banks. According to this document, customer acceptance, customer due diligence, and record-keeping policies and procedures should be changed as necessary to address variations in risk among each line of business within the organization. This means that banks should adopt a risk-based approach to KYC, taking into account the different types, levels, and sources of risk associated with different customers, products, services, transactions, and delivery channels. By doing so, banks can allocate their resources more efficiently and effectively, and mitigate the potential for money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.

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.

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.

Casinos arehigh-riskformoney launderingdue to theircash-intensive natureandease of moving funds anonymously.

Option A (Correct):Aprivate company sending funds into multiple patron accountsissuspiciousbecause it may indicatemoney laundering structuringor use ofmules.

Option B (Incorrect):Betting on multiple events isnormal behaviorunless there isevidence of match-fixing.

Option C (Incorrect):Large cash buy-ins are common in casinos; however, they become suspicious when coupled withother red flags(e.g., no actual gambling).

Option D (Incorrect):Transferring winnings may be aregular transactionunless linked tostructured transactions.

 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.

 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]

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, electronic funds transfers (EFTs) are transactions that involve the movement of funds electronically from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, domestically or internationally1. EFTs can be used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating trade, commerce, and remittances, but they can also beexploited by money launderers to conceal the origin, ownership, and destination of illicit funds2. Some of the indicators of money laundering associated with using EFTs are:

Funds transfers to or from a financial secrecy haven without an apparent business reason. Financial secrecy havens are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of banking secrecy, low or no taxes, lax regulation and supervision, and weak or non-existent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures3. Money launderers may use these havens to hide their illicit funds, evade taxes, and avoid scrutiny from authorities. Funds transfers to or from these havens without a clear or plausible explanation may indicate an attempt to launder money or finance terrorism.

Funds transfers are received or sent from the same person to or from different accounts. This may indicate a layering technique, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership ofthe funds4. Money launderers may use this technique to avoid detection, reporting, or freezing of their funds by authorities or financial institutions.

Payment or receipts with no apparent link to legitimate contracts, goods or services. This may indicate a trade-based money laundering technique, which is the process of using trade transactions to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under-invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents. Money launderers may use this technique to transfer value across borders, evade taxes or customs duties, or justify the movement of funds that have no legitimate origin or purpose.

The other option is incorrect because:

Regular and frequent transfers from the account of a large company said to be payment for goods bought on credit is not necessarily an indicator of money laundering associated with using EFTs. This may be a normal business practice for some companies that have a high volume of transactions or a long-term relationship with their suppliers or customers. However, this may also be a red flag if the company is not well-known, has no physical presence, has no apparent business activity, or is located in a high-risk jurisdiction. Therefore, this option requires further investigation and verification before concluding that it is an indicator of money laundering.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 104 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 107 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 108

A compliance officer should consider the following three factors as part of the approach to implement an enterprise-wide anti-money laundering program for a bank that operates in multiple countries:

The types of customers serviced by the bank: Different types of customers may pose different levels of money laundering risk, depending on their nature, source of funds, geographic location, transaction patterns, and other factors. A compliance officer should identify and assess the money laundering risk associated with each customer type and segment, and apply appropriate due diligence measures, monitoring systems, and risk mitigation strategies accordingly12.

The extent of anti-money laundering regulations in the various countries: A compliance officer should be aware of the legal and regulatory requirements and expectations for anti-money laundering compliance in each country where the bank operates, and ensure that the bank’s policies and procedures are consistent with them. A compliance officer should also monitor any changes or updates in the anti-money laundering laws and regulations in the various countries, and adjust the bank’s program accordingly34.

The anti-money laundering risk posed by the products and services offered by the bank: Different products and services may have different features and functionalities that could be exploited by money launderers, such as anonymity, cross-border transfers, cash transactions,complex structures, or new technologies. A compliance officer should evaluate the money laundering risk associated with each product and service offered by the bank, and implement appropriate controls, safeguards, and oversight mechanisms to prevent and detect money laundering activities5 .

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments

2: FATF, Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: The Banking Sector

3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)

4: Deloitte, AML Program Effectiveness Reform

5: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: AML Program Design

[6]: OCC, Money Laundering: A Banker’s Guide to Avoiding Problems

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, designatedBSA/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.

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

 The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system1. The FATF identifies jurisdictions with serious strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering / counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes and issues public statements to warn the international community of the risks emanating from these jurisdictions2. These jurisdictions are also known as high-risk jurisdictions subject to a call for action, or the “black list” in external sources2. The FATF urges its members and all other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures to protect themselves from the money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by these jurisdictions2. Counter-measures are enhanced due diligence or restrictive measures that go beyond the normal AML/CFT requirements, such as requiring additional information or documentation, rejecting transactions, restricting business relationships, or terminating correspondent banking relationships3. The FATF also provides guidance on the types and levels of counter-measures that may be appropriate, depending on the specific risks and circumstances of each jurisdiction3.

1: What is the FATF? | FATF

2: High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action | FATF

3: Guidance on Counter Proliferation Financing - The Implementation of Financial Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions to Counter the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction | FATF

these are the main factors that determine the inherent money laundering risk of a financial institution. The customer base, location, products and services of a financial institution affect the type, volume, and complexity of transactions that it processes, as well as the exposure to high-risk customers, jurisdictions, and activities12. A financial institution should review these factors regularly and conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to identify, measure, and mitigate its money laundering risk34.

Anti Money Laundering Risk Assessment - Financial Crime Academy1

Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) Risk Approach Explained | Okta2

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS4

2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (NMLRA)5

A compliance officer should communicate with regulatory and law enforcement authorities in line with applicable local laws during an ongoing investigation into a client’s activities by a competent authority. This is because the compliance officer has a duty to cooperate with the authorities and provide relevant information and documents as requested, while also protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the client and the institution. The compliance officer should not restrict the communication to senior management only, as this could hinder the investigation or create a perception of obstruction. The compliance officer should not communicate only in writing, as this could limit the effectiveness and timeliness of the communication. The compliance officer should not limit the communication to the absolute minimum, as this could imply a lack of cooperation or transparency.

=

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

When seekinglegal evidence across borders,MLATsare themost formal and effective mechanism.

Option A (Correct):MLATsprovide alegal frameworkfor exchangingevidence in criminal investigations.

Option B (Incorrect):TheEgmont Secure Webfacilitatesintelligence sharing between FIUs, butnot legal evidence.

Option C (Incorrect):INTERPOL focuses on law enforcement cooperation, but not formalevidence gathering for prosecutions.

Option D (Incorrect):Direct requestsbetween anti-corruption authorities may not havelegal standing in court.

According to the Wolfsberg Group’s Statement on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism1, a compliance officer should include the following three procedures in revising an institution’s CTF efforts:

Consulting applicable lists and taking appropriate actions to determine if customers appear on such lists. This procedure is important to prevent terrorist organizations from accessing the financial services of the institution and to comply with the sanctions and regulations imposed by competent authorities. The compliance officer should implement procedures for checking the customers against the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations issued by relevant authorities and taking reasonable and practicable steps to verify the identity and status of the customers.

Reporting matches from lists of known or suspected terrorists to relevant authorities. This procedure is important to assist the authorities in their efforts to detect and disrupt terrorist financing and to fulfill the legal obligations of the institution. The compliance officer should report to the relevant authorities any matches from the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations consistent with the applicable laws and regulations regarding the disclosure of customer information.

Maintaining customer information to facilitate timely retrieval of such information. This procedure is important to enable the institution to respond promptly and effectively to the enquiries and requests from the authorities and to enhance the quality and accuracy of the customer data. The compliance officer should explore ways of improving the maintenance of customer information to facilitate the timely retrieval of such information.

Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing

UNUSUAL CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCES

• Customer furnishes unusual or suspicious identification documents or declines to produce originals for verification."

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.

= 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.

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.

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

A: The main objective of anti-bribery and corruption regulations is to prohibit bribes to government officials or employees of state-owned enterprises for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing improper advantages.

“Anti-bribery and corruption regulations, such as the FCPA and UK Bribery Act, prohibit offering anything of value to public officials to gain a business advantage.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Anti-Bribery and Corruption)

 The correct answer is C because the European Union Money Laundering Directives require lawyers and other independent legal professionals to report suspicious transactions to the competent authority when they are involved in certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as creating or managing companies, trusts, or other legal arrangements. The directives also provide that the obligation to report overrides any professional secrecy or confidentiality rules, except when the lawyer is ascertaining the legal position of the client or representing the client in legal proceedings or in connection with such proceedings. Therefore, the lawyer in this scenario should report the activity as suspicious to the competent authority, as creating a financial holding company for the client falls within the scope of the reporting obligation and does not qualify for the exemption12

=

1: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 141

2: Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, Article 33 and 34

This is a common red flag of money laundering that involves layering, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to conceal their origin and ownership. Layering often involves cross-border transfers, especially to high-risk jurisdictions, and rapid movement of funds to avoid detection or tracing. A compliance officer should prioritize this red flag for investigation, as it may indicate a complex money laundering scheme or the financing of terrorism or proliferation.

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, section “Red flags related to transaction patterns”

AML 101: The 10 Most Common Red Flags - KYC-Chain, section “Red flag indicators related to geographical risks”

Anti-money laundering red flags, page 2, bullet point 5

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.

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

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)areformal agreementsforcross-border law enforcement cooperation.

Option D (Correct):MLATsallow countries toexchange information, conduct joint investigations, and provide legal assistance.

Option A (Incorrect):Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)are typicallynon-binding agreementsbetween private entities.

Option B (Incorrect):Declarations of understandingare informal statements, not legally binding treaties.

Option C (Incorrect):Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)governgeneral cooperation, notformal legal assistance.

An FIU is a central, national agency responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating to the competent authorities disclosures of financial information concerning suspected proceeds of crime and potential financing of terrorism or required by nationallegislation or regulation1. FIUs play a crucial role in the detection and prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing by collecting, processing, and analyzing financial intelligence and sharing it with domestic and foreign counterparts2. FIUs may have different organizational structures, functions, and legal frameworks, but they all adhere tothe international standards and best practices set by the Egmont Group of FIUs3.

What We Do | FinCEN.gov

Financial Intelligence Units: An Overview (June 2004) - IMF, page 1

[Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units]

According to the web sources I found, FATF Recommendation 18 requires financial institutions to implement group-wide programmes against money laundering and terrorist financing that include policies and procedures for sharing information within the group for AML/CFT purposes12. These programmes should also include compliance management arrangements, screening procedures for hiring employees, an independent audit function and ongoing employee training1.

A customer’s account appears to function as a funnel account whereby cash deposits occur in cities/states where the customer does not reside or conduct business. Frequently, in the case of funnel accounts, the funds are quickly withdrawn (same day) after the deposits are made

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 collaboratewith 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 withthe 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.

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

U.S. AML lawshave significantextraterritorial effectsdue tothe dominance of the U.S. dollar in global finance.

Option C (Correct):Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Actallows theseizure of funds from foreign correspondent bank accountsin the U.S.

Option D (Correct):OFAC sanctionscan affectnon-U.S. entitiesif theyengage in prohibited transactions using U.S. dollars.

Option A (Incorrect):TheTravel Rule applies only to financial institutions under U.S. jurisdiction.

Option B (Incorrect):TheAML Act of 2020strengthensU.S. financial crime enforcement, butdoes not govern all USD transactions worldwide.

Physical certificates are documents that represent ownership of securities, such as stocks or bonds, that are issued by a company or a government. Physical certificates present a money laundering risk to broker-dealers for two reasons:

The trade information on a physical certificate can be easily altered, such as the name of the owner, the date of issuance, or the number of shares. This can facilitate the concealment or falsification of the origin, ownership, or value of the securities, and enable the laundering of illicit funds through the purchase or sale of the securities.

Physical certificates may be provided to nominees for deposit or settled in off-market transactions, such as private placements, bearer bonds, or direct transfers. This can bypass the normal reporting or recordkeeping requirements of the broker-dealer, and avoid the scrutiny or verification of the identity, source of funds, or beneficial ownership of the securities.

Two Reasons Physical Certificates Pose Money Laundering Risks to Broker …

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS

ACAMS Online Certificates | ACAMS

Havens for money laundering and terrorist financing are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of anonymity, secrecy, and protection to criminals who seek to conceal or move their illicit funds. These havens typically have the following three attributes12:

Limited types of institutions and persons covered by money laundering laws and regulations. This means that only a narrow range of financial activities or entities are subject to anti-money laundering (AML) and combatting the financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations, such as customer due diligence, record-keeping, reporting, and supervision. For example, some havens may exclude lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or non-bank financial institutions from AML/CFT requirements.

Little enforcement of the laws, weak penalties or provisions that make it difficult to confiscate or freeze assets related to money laundering. This means that the authorities in these havens lack the political will, resources, or capacity to effectively implement and enforce the AML/CFT laws and regulations. They may also impose low sanctions or fines for non-compliance, or create legal barriers or obstacles for the confiscation or freezing of assets that are the proceeds of, or used in, or intended or allocated for use in, money laundering, terrorist financing, or other crimes.

Absence of an effective FIU. This means that these havens do not have a central agency that is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other crimes. An effective FIU is essential for facilitating domestic and international cooperation and information exchange, as well as for supporting investigations and prosecutions of money laundering and terrorist financing cases.

1: The IMF and the Fight Against Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, 1 2: IX Special Recommendations, 2

According to the ACAMS study guide1, some of the common red flags for money laundering or financing terrorism are:

Customers who provide insufficient or suspicious information, such as unusual or unverifiable identification documents, different taxpayer identification numbers, or vague or inconsistent information about their business or source of funds.

Transactions that have unusual features, such as large cash payments, unexplained payments from a third party, use of multiple or foreign accounts, complex or illogical transactions, or transactions that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or expected behavior.

Geographic concerns, such as transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions, offshore financial centers, secrecy havens, or countries subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Ultimate beneficial ownership that is unclear, such as customers who use shell companies, trusts, or other legal entities to obscure their identity or the identity of the true owners or controllers of the funds or assets.

In this scenario, two red flags that could indicate money laundering or financing terrorism are:

B. The guarantor company’s ownership structure is overly complex. This could be an attempt to hide the true source or destination of the funds, or to evade regulatory or law enforcement scrutiny. The use of a trust formed in a Caribbean island and a holding company based in a European secrecy haven could also indicate geographic concerns, as these jurisdictions are known for their low transparency and high confidentiality.

D. The ultimate beneficial owner is a young lady who has gained her wealth through a small business. This could be a case of false or misleading information, as the source of funds is not commensurate with the size or nature of the transaction. The fitness studio business could be a front or a cover for illicit activities, or the young lady could be a nominee or a straw man for the real owner or beneficiary.

= 1 ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination: Sixth Edition. Miami, FL: ACAMS.

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a method of disguising and moving illicit funds through the international trade system. Criminals often manipulate various aspects of trade transactions, such as pricing, quantity, documentation, and commodity type, to transfer value and obscure the source of funds. Some of the common red flags that may indicate TBML are:

The transaction involves the use of front (or shell) companies: Front or shell companies are entities that have no physical presence, no employees, and no business activity, but are used to facilitate money laundering. They often have vague or generic names, are registered in secrecy jurisdictions, and have no available ownership information. In this case, ABC Holdings Ltd. and Sunrise Holdings Ltd. could be front or shell companies that are used to launder money through trade transactions.

The type of commodity being shipped appears inconsistent with the exporter or importer’s regular business activities: Criminals may use commodities that are unrelated to their core business or that have low correlation with the market price to launder money. They may also use commodities that are difficult to value, verify, or trace, such as precious metals, gems, art, or antiquities. In this case, the automotive parts company and the silk flower supplier seem to have no logical connection, and the value of the silk flowers may be inflated or deflated to transfer funds.

Trade-Based Money Laundering: Risk Indicators - Financial Action Task Force, pp. 9-10, 14-15

Identifying TBML: 8 Trade-Based Money Laundering Red Flags - Alessa, pp. 1-2

FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, p. 7

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, p. 1

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.

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

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.

= 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

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.

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 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.

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

TheAML supervisory authorityis responsible for overseeing financial institutions' compliance with AML/CFT regulations.

Option D (Correct):AML supervisory authorities, such as theFinancial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK,FinCEN in the US, orEuropean Central Bank (ECB) for EU institutions, conduct inspections, issue reports, and enforce penalties when AML deficiencies are found.

Option A (Incorrect):Self-regulatory bodies provide guidelines butdo not have legal authorityto withdraw banking licenses.

Option B (Incorrect):Law enforcement may investigate criminal conduct, butregulatory compliance issuesfall under AML supervisory authorities.

Option C (Incorrect):FATF provides guidance and assessments but doesnot directly enforcecompliance at individual financial institutions.

An internal investigation log is primarily intended to track the status of investigations into unusual activity. This is to ensure that the investigations are conducted in a timely, thorough, and consistent manner, and that the results and recommendations are documented and communicated to the relevant parties12. An internal investigation log can also help the organization to identify any trends, patterns, or gaps in its anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program, and to measure its effectiveness and efficiency3.

An internal investigation log is not intended to provide training on investigations to the anti-money laundering officer and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), report status of investigations to the Board of Directors, or detect and monitor possible suspicious activity. These are separate functions that may involve the use of the internal investigation log, but are not its primary purpose.

1: How to Conduct Effective AML Investigations - Blog | Unit211 2: BSA/AML Internal Audit: PwC2 3: Anti-Money Laundering: 5 Steps to Conduct an Audit3

TheBasel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS)setsglobal standards for bank governanceand states that theBoard of Directors plays a critical rolein AML oversight.

Option D (Correct):The Board is responsible for:

Establishing and approving the AML compliance function.

Ensuring the compliance function has adequate authority and resources.

Overseeing risk management efforts and policies.

Option A (Incorrect):The Board should be actively involved, not just informed when required.

Option B (Incorrect):The compliance function must have direct access to the Boardto ensure independent oversight.

Option C (Incorrect):The Board must be involved in policy establishmentfor effective compliance management.

Why Board Oversight is Critical:

Ensures effective AML governance and accountability.

Reduces regulatory risks and potential financial penalties.

Strengthens financial institution stability and reputation.

Best Practices for Board Oversight in AML Governance:

Establish independent compliance reporting lines to the Board.

Ensure regular AML risk assessments and policy reviews.

Mandate regular AML training for senior management.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are highlighted by FATF, the EU, and CAMS 6th Edition as a key method for improving the fight against financial crime. The main benefit is the sharing of intelligence and typologies between banks, law enforcement, and regulators, enabling more effective detection and prevention of illicit activity.

“PPPs facilitate the exchange of actionable intelligence between public and private sectors, resulting in better detection, investigation, and prevention of financial crime.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Public-Private Partnerships in AML/CTF)

Incorrect Options:

B: PPPs are not primarily designed to automate information sharing or reduce costs.

C: SARs must always be filed with the FIU; PPPs do not change this.

D: PPPs do not guarantee real-time intelligence, which remains a challenge.

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.

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"

Implementing a sound customer due diligence (CDD) program is the most effective way to prevent money laundering through financial institutions, according to experts. CDD is the process of identifying and verifying the identity of customers and assessing their risk profile, source of funds, and expected activity. CDD helps financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering by enabling them to know their customers, monitor their transactions, and report any suspicious or unusual behavior. CDD is also a key requirement of the international standards and best practices for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Guidelines.

The other options are not as effective as CDD, as they are either too narrow or too broad in scope. Ensuring that transaction monitoring systems can identify terrorist financing is important, but it does not address the broader issue of money laundering, which may involve other types of criminal proceeds or activities. Collecting information on beneficial owners and foreign customers is a part of CDD, but it is not sufficient by itself, as it does not cover the risk assessment and ongoing monitoring aspects of CDD. Instituting a policy prohibiting the acceptance of funds intended for terrorist financing is a good practice, but it is not a preventive measure, as it relies on the assumption that the funds are already identified as such, which may not be the case.

Customer Due Diligence - FATF-GAFI.ORG

Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism - Bank for International Settlements

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 36-37.

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.

A (Enhanced due diligence): EDD is a key control at onboarding for high-risk customers, involving deeper scrutiny, additional documentation, and approval layers to address increased ML/TF risk.

“High-risk customers must be subject to enhanced due diligence during onboarding to ensure a thorough understanding of potential ML/TF risks.”(CAMS 6th Edition, CDD/EDD for High-Risk Customers)

An institution should incorporate on-going training, periodic audits, and ability to incorporate relevant legislative and regulatory AML changes in its AML policies and procedures. These are essential elements of an effective AML program, as they ensure that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the institution is compliant with the applicable laws and regulations, and the AML program is updated and adapted to the changing risks and environment.

=

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

The Egmont Group is a united body of 174 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that uniquely support national and international efforts to counter terrorist financing and share financial information per global anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards. Its primary objective is to enhance international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and financing of terrorism. The Egmont Group facilitates the exchange of expertise and financial intelligence among FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offenses. While it does not conduct financial investigationsitself, it plays a crucial role in improving stakeholders’ understanding of ML/TF risks and informing policy considerations related to AML/CFT implementation and reforms12.

 the results of related audits and examinations are the most useful additional element to report to executive management on a regular basis. Audits and examinations are essential tools to assess the effectiveness and compliance of the anti-money laundering program across the organization. They can identify strengths, weaknesses, gaps, risks, and best practices in the program and provide recommendations for improvement. They can also help to monitor the implementation of corrective actions and remediation plans. Reporting the results of audits and examinations can help executive management to oversee the performance of the program, ensure accountability, and demonstrate commitment to the anti-money laundering objectives12

=

1: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 62

2: CERTIFICATION Candidate Handbook, page 16

The bank should request a formal letter be submitted to verify the validity of the request, as this is the best practice to ensure compliance with the law and protect customer privacy. The bank should not confirm or deny the existence of a customer relationship, nor provide any information without proper authorization. The bank should also not inform the board of directors before responding to the request, as this could compromise the confidentiality of the investigation or alert the customer.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.3: Data Protection and Privacy, Slide 10

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Page 51

This action is the most appropriate because it demonstrates the local manager’s responsibility and accountability for the sanctions compliance program. Sanctions screening is an important part of the Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) processes, as it helps to identify and prevent transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, which could expose the financial institution to legal, regulatory, and reputational risks. Failing to perform sanctions screening could result in violations of sanctions laws and regulations, which could lead to fines, penalties, sanctions, or even criminal prosecution. Therefore, the local manager should immediately inform senior management of the issue, so that they can take corrective actions, such as implementing screening procedures, conducting a risk assessment, reviewing existing customers, reporting any potential violations, and providing training and guidance to the staff.

The other actions are not appropriate because they either do not address the root cause of the problem, or they could worsen the situation. Starting screening new customers without informing senior management could create a false sense of compliance, and it could also miss the existing customers who may be sanctioned. Immediately informing the regulators without informing senior management could undermine the trust andcommunication within the organization, and it could also trigger an investigation or enforcement action before the issue is resolved internally. Doing nothing because the department only handles a very small number of mortgages could be a sign of negligence or indifference, and it could also expose the financial institution to significant risks, as even one transaction with a sanctioned party could have serious consequences.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: Developing and Implementing an AML Training Program, pp. 97-98

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 76-77

What is Sanctions Screening and How Does It Work? | Jumio, Introduction and Benefits of Sanctions Screening

Sanctions Screening: Challenges and Control Considerations, Background and Regulatory Expectations for Sanctions Screening

Sanction Screening: A Complete Guide | KYC AML Guide, What is Sanction Screening and Why is it Important?

AnEnterprise-Wide Risk Assessment (EWRA)helpsfinancial institutionsidentify and mitigatemoney laundering risks.

Option B (Correct):Wolfsberg Group and FATF emphasize that an EWRA should focus onhigher-risk customers, products, and geographies, ensuringappropriate controlsare in place.

Option A (Incorrect):Institutions shouldnot blindly adopt third-party frameworkswithoutcustomizing themto their specific risk exposure.

Option C (Incorrect):While new clients are important, an EWRA mustassess risks across all customers and transactions.

Option D (Incorrect):EWRAmust address residual risk, not just inherent risk. Effectivemitigation strategiesare essential.

The customer’s profile and transactions are highly suspicious and indicative of possible money laundering. The customer’s income, source of wealth, and investment plans do not match with the large and frequent transfers from a diamond distributor, which is a high-risk business sector for money laundering. The customer’s transfers to Hong Kong, which is a high-risk jurisdiction for money laundering, also raise red flags. The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend contacting the competent authority and local law enforcement to report the suspicious activity and cooperate with any investigation. This is in accordance with the FATF Recommendation 20, which states that "If a financial institution suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds arethe proceeds of a criminal activity, or are related to terrorist financing, it should be required, by law, to report promptly its suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU)"1. The other options are not appropriate, as they do not address the urgency and severity of the situation.

 1: FATF (2012), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, p. 19.

Wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and large cash deposits from a high-risk jurisdiction are two red flags that may indicate money laundering. These activities suggest thatthe customer is trying to move funds from or to a country that has weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that is known to be a source or destination of illicit funds12. Wire transfers can also be used to obscure the origin or destination of the funds, or to layer transactions through multiple accounts or intermediaries3. Large cash deposits can indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the reporting or record-keeping requirements that apply to cash transactions, or that the customer is dealing with proceeds from illegal activities45. The other two options are not necessarily red flags, as the bank may have legitimate reasons to allow cash deposits, and the client may reside in a high-risk jurisdiction for legitimate reasons.

 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Geographic Concerns, 6; 2: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators?, ComplyAdvantage, 5; 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Transaction Has Unusual Features, 6; 4: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Unusual Source of Funds, 6; 5: Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, High Speed Training, 8.

Broker-dealers cannot have correspondent accounts with a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. The USA PATRIOT Act has an extraterritorial effect in that it prohibits broker-dealers from having correspondent accounts with foreign banks that do not have a physical presence in any country. This rule is designed to help prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by making it more difficult for funds to be moved to or through jurisdictions with less stringent anti-money laundering laws.

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are the primary channels for sharing financial intelligence both within countries and across borders. FIUs cooperate with each other and other relevant law enforcement, regulatory, or intelligence agencies in the fight against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other financial crimes.

OFAC sanctions are a key element of the U.S. AML/CFT framework. According to the CAMS 6th Edition and OFAC regulations:

Blocked funds must be placed into an interest-bearing account on a financial institution's books (B):“Blocked property must be held in a separate interest-bearing account on the books of the U.S. financial institution.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance; OFAC FAQs)

Sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions (C):“OFAC administers both comprehensive and targeted (selective) sanctions programs to fulfill U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance)

Incorrect Options:

A: OFAC can sanction entities, vessels, and organizations—not just individuals or those in foreign countries.

D: There is no automatic expiration of OFAC sanctions after five years.

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.

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

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, countries should implement measures to prevent the abuse of non-profit organizations (NPOs) for the financing of terrorism. One of these measures is to ensure that NPOs cannot be used to conceal or obscure the diversion of funds intended for legitimate purposes to terrorists’ organizations. This means that countries should have effective mechanisms to monitor and supervise NPOs, especially those that are at risk of terrorist financing abuse, and to take appropriate actions against NPOs that are involved in such activities. Countries should also ensure that NPOs maintain adequate records of their activities and transactions, and that these records are accessible to competent authorities. Furthermore, countries should promote transparency and accountability in the NPO sector, and encourage NPOs to conduct due diligence on their donors, beneficiaries, and associates.

=

FATF 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 8 and Interpretive Note to Recommendation 8

Best Practices on Combating the Abuse of Non-Profit Organisations, FATF, June 2015

COMBATING THE ABUSE OF NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS (RECOMMENDATION 8), FATF, June 2015

ARisk-Based Approach (RBA)allows financial institutions toallocate compliance resources effectivelyandprioritize higher-risk areasforenhanced due diligence (EDD).

Option A (Correct):An RBA enables institutions to tailor their AML controls based on risk exposure, ensuring better resource allocation.

Option B (Incorrect):While RBAimproves efficiency, itdoes not guarantee faster implementationof controls.

Option C (Incorrect):RBA is a regulatory requirement, butit is not necessarily determined by customer acceptance.

Option D (Incorrect):RBA provides guidance on risk mitigation, but itdoes not dictate specific resource usage.

Benefits of a Risk-Based Approach (RBA):

Efficient use of compliance resourcesby focusing onhigh-risk transactions, customers, and geographies.

Regulatory compliance alignmentwithFATF, Basel Committee, and Wolfsberg Group AML principles.

Flexibility to adjust AML controlsas new threats emerge.

Best Practices for Implementing RBA in AML Compliance:

Conduct enterprise-wide risk assessments (EWRAs).

Classify customers and transactions based on risk levels.

Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk clients.

This is the correct answer because the institution must ensure that the beneficiaries of the transfers are not on a terrorist watch list, such as the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List, the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or the European Union Terrorism List. These lists contain the names of individuals, entities, and groups that are subject to sanctions or other measures due to their involvement or association with terrorism or terrorist financing. The institution must screen the beneficiaries of the transfers against these lists and report any matches or hits to the relevant authorities. Failing to do so may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, or reputational risks, as well as facilitate the financing of terrorism.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Lesson 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, pp. 57-58

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, Slide 12

The compliance officer should recommend an audit for cash transactions since the last compliance review, as this would help to identify the extent of the problem, the root causes, and the potential risks involved. The audit would also provide evidence for corrective actions and remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of non-compliance. The compliance officer should not recommend terminating or suspending the teller’s employment, as this would be premature and disproportionate without a thorough investigation and due process. The compliance officer should not recommend formally reprimanding the branch manager, as this would not address the underlying issues and could create a hostile work environment.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 1251

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 12

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 5, Task 33

D

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 1, page 91, placement is the first stage of money laundering, where the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system. Thisstage involves the highest risk of detection, as the money launderers may use various methods to avoid suspicion, such as structuring, commingling, or using cash-intensive businesses. Placement is followed by layering and integration, which are the second and third stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are moved and disguised through multiple transactions and entities, and then integrated into the legitimate economy as seemingly legal assets.

The other options are not the financial stages of money laundering, although they may be related to some aspects or techniques of money laundering. Option A, integration, is the final stage of money laundering, not the first. Option B, structuring, is a method of placement, not a stage of money laundering. Structuring, also known as smurfing, is the practice of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits or transactions to avoid reporting thresholds or scrutiny. Option C, off shoring, is a term that refers to the relocation of assets or activities to another jurisdiction, usually for tax or regulatory advantages. Off shoring may be used by money launderers to exploit the differences or loopholes between jurisdictions, but it is not a stage of money laundering.

1: ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 9:

IT expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes. The first EU Directive on Money Laundering, adopted in 1990, was the first major international agreement to combat money laundering. It expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes and established drug trafficking as a predicate offense of money laundering. The Directive also extended the scope of money laundering beyond drug-related crimes, making it applicable to all serious crimes. This was a major step forward in the fight against money laundering, as it made it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute money laundering cases.

 MSBs are frequently accused of being high risk for money laundering because they offer services that can facilitate the movement and conversion of illicit funds, such as currency exchange, money transmission, cheque cashing, and online payment. However, not all MSBs pose the same level of risk, and the degree of regulatory oversight and compliance requirements for MSBs may differ significantly depending on the jurisdiction they operate in. Some countries may have robust anti-money laundering (AML) regimes for MSBs, while others may have weak or inconsistent regulations, or even no regulations at all. This creates challenges and vulnerabilities for MSBs that operate across borders, as they may face different expectations and obligations from different authorities, or encounter gaps or loopholes in the AML framework. Moreover, some MSBs may operate informally or illegally, without registering or obtaining licenses from the relevant regulators, making them harder to detect and supervise. Therefore, MSBs are often perceived as high risk for money laundering, as they may be exploited by criminals who seek to take advantage of the regulatory discrepancies or deficiencies among countries.

Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses1

What Is A Money Services Business?2

Money Services Business (MSB) Information Center3

Money Services Business (MSB): Types, Examples, & AML Compliance4

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 ofmoney 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.

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

 Antiques are a potential tool for money laundering because they can be used to conceal, move, and convert illicit funds. Antiques can be of high value and often easily transported across borders, making them attractive for criminals who want to evade detection and reporting. Antiques can also be difficult to value and authenticate, creating a lack of transparency and accountability in the market. Criminals can exploit this to inflate or deflate the prices of antiques, or to use them as collateral for loans or other transactions. Antiques can also be used to layer or integrate illicit funds into the legitimate economy, by selling them through auction houses, dealers, or online platforms.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.

Anti-money laundering and the art and antiquities market - a US and UK perspective, Mishcon de Reya LLP, 2022.

Antiques: an unconventional money laundering tool, The Express Tribune, 2023.

Art and Antiquities an Attractive Market for Money Laundering, FATF Argues, OCCRP, 2021.

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.

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

 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.

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

AML compliancemust be balanced with data protection lawssuch asGDPR (EU), CCPA (U.S.), and local banking secrecy laws.

Option B (Correct):Data minimization ensures financial institutions only collect and retain essential customer dataneeded for AML compliance.

Option C (Correct):Regularly updating data processing policies ensures compliance with evolving data protection regulations.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Unrestricted access to customer data increases privacy risksand canviolate GDPR and other data protection laws.

Option D (Incorrect):AML data must not be repurposed without regulatory justification, asGDPR requires data usage to align with its original collection purpose.

Best Practices for Managing Data Privacy in AML Compliance:

Restrict access to AML data on a need-to-know basis.

Implement strong encryption and security controls for customer data.

Ensure all AML-related data collection aligns with privacy regulations.

Compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies. This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 595, which states: “Sanctions screening requirements include that a financial institution should compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies.”

Thethird line of defense (internal audit)providesindependent oversightof an institution’sAML/CFT compliance framework.

Option B (Correct):The internal audit function should report to the board’s audit committeeto maintainindependence and objectivity.

Option A (Incorrect):While frequent audits are essential, AML audits should be risk-based rather than mandated at a strict 12-month interval.

Option C (Incorrect):Internal audit must assess remediation plansto ensure they adequatelyaddress AML deficiencies.

Option D (Incorrect):The third line of defense should not be involved in daily AML operationstoavoid conflicts of interest.

Three Lines of Defense in AML Risk Management:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

Best Practices for AML Audit Function:

Ensure complete independence from AML operations.

Conduct risk-based audits tailored to emerging threats.

Report audit findings to the board for effective oversight.

The activities that could be considered a potential spear phishing scam are:

A courier delivers a duplicate invoice to a business that contains updated payment details of an existing supplier. This could be a way of diverting funds to a fraudulent account by impersonating a legitimate vendor and exploiting the trust relationship between the business and the supplier1.

Payroll receives an external email from an employee looking to update their bank account information. This could be a way of stealing money from the employee or the employer by pretending to be the employee and requesting a change in the payment method or destination2.

An employee receives an email that asks to download an attachment, but the attachment is a malware. This could be a way of infecting the employee’s computer or network with malicious software that could compromise sensitive data, disrupt operations, or demand ransom3.

The other options are not necessarily spear phishing scams, although they may be other types of fraud or deception. For example:

An employee receives a phone call requesting that money be sent to assist someone in trouble. This could be a vishing scam, which is a form of voice phishing that uses phone calls to solicit personal or financial information or to request money transfers4.

A business sends its employees an email warning that email passwords must be changed to prevent cyber-fraud. This could be a legitimate security measure, or it could be a phishing scam, which is a form of email phishing that targets a broad audience and tries to trick them into revealing their credentials or clicking on malicious links.

Members of a religious organization receive a donation request by email claiming to be from their leader. This could be a genuine appeal, or it could be a social engineering scam, which is aform of manipulation that exploits the human factor and relies on the victim’s emotions, trust, or sympathy.

Human trafficking and modern slaveryinvolveillicit financial transactions, often conductedthrough banks, money service businesses (MSBs), or virtual assets.

Option B (Correct):Frequent payments for online advertisementscan indicaterecruitment for illicit labor or traffickingoperations.

Option C (Correct):Incoming funds from third-party processors with unclear originatorssuggestconcealed financial flows linked to illicit activities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Transactional activity with a virtual currency exchange alone is not a strong human trafficking red flag.

Option D (Incorrect):Cash payments to workers could indicate labor law violations but do not necessarily indicate human trafficking.

Common Financial Red Flags for Human Trafficking:

Unexplained cash deposits and withdrawals from multiple accounts.

Frequent wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions.

Use of prepaid cards to move funds anonymously.

Best Practices for Detecting & Preventing Human Trafficking-Related Transactions:

Train frontline staff to recognize financial indicators of trafficking.

Monitor unusual transaction patterns in industries with high labor exploitation risks.

File Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when trafficking-related transactions are suspected.

Adverse media screening seeks to identify reputational or financial crime risk by:

B: Identifying links to criminal activity or sanctions.

C: Monitoring regulatory actions and updates for risk associations.

D: Regularly scanning news and public records for negative information.

“Adverse media screening involves collecting and reviewing publicly available information, news, and regulatory actions to detect links to criminal activity or reputational risks.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Adverse Media Screening; FATF Guidance)

Incorrect:

A and E: Customer sentiment and credit scores are not core to adverse media screening.

 According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1, the AML program should be reassessed periodically or when there are significant changes in the business environment, such as:

Expansion of business to new territories: This could expose the business to new risks, regulations, and customers that require different AML policies, procedures, and controls. The AML program should be updated to reflect the new jurisdictions and their AML requirements, as well as to conduct appropriate risk assessments and due diligence on the new markets and customers.

New product offering: This could introduce new vulnerabilities, opportunities, and challenges for the AML program. The AML program should be revised to incorporate the new product features, benefits, and risks, as well as to ensure compliance with any applicable AML rules and standards for the new product.

The other options are not factors that would necessarily lead to a reassessment of the current AML program, unless they have a material impact on the AML risks, objectives, or performance of the business:

Appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer: This could affect the AML program if the new CFO has a different vision, strategy, or approach to AML than the previous one, or if the new CFO has a significant role or responsibility in the AML program. However, the appointment of a new CFO alone does not trigger a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other changes or issues that warrant a review.

Change of company name: This could affect the AML program if the change of name reflects a change of ownership, structure, or nature of the business that could alter the AML risks, obligations, or expectations. However, the change of name alone does not necessitate a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other implications or consequences that affect the AML program.

Change of internal audit team members: This could affect the AML program if the new internal audit team members have different qualifications, skills, or experiences than the previous ones, or if the new internal audit team members have a different scope, methodology, or frequency of auditing the AML program. However, the change of internal audit team members alone does not require a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other factors or findings that indicate a need for a review.

Assessing AML/CFT is an ongoing and evolving component of maintaining a compliant AML/CFT program. Evaluating the risk-scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every 18 to 24 months, before the launch of a new product or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.

A personal banking customer who simultaneously opens several accounts with almost identical names will most likely cause further inquiry, as this could indicate an attempt to evade transaction monitoring, reporting, or identification requirements. For example, a customer could open accounts with slight variations of their name, such as John Smith, Jon Smith, J. Smith, or John Smyth, to avoid detection or aggregation of their transactions. This could also be a sign of identity theft, fraud, or money muling. Therefore, the bank should verify the customer’s identity and the purpose of the accounts, and monitor the activity for any suspicious patterns or behaviors.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, p. 1051

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.1, p. 52

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for the Banking Sector, October 2014, p. 353

A risk-based approach is central to AML/CFT programs and includes:

A: Creating detailed risk profiles for customers based on their behaviors and connections.

C: Applying controls that are tailored to the actual risk (not a one-size-fits-all approach).

D: Performing a thorough risk assessment, considering customer, transaction, and geographic factors.

“A risk-based approach involves risk profiling, tailored controls, and comprehensive risk assessment across key risk factors.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Risk-Based Approach and Risk Assessment)

Incorrect:

B: Monitoring only flagged customers is not sufficient.

E: Equal allocation of resources ignores differing risk levels.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the most common methods of placement is to deposit cash into a bank account, either directly or through intermediaries. This allows the money launderer to introduce the illicit funds into the legitimate financial system, and to create a paper trail that can be used to justify the source of the funds. However, this method also exposes the money launderer to the risk of detection by the bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures, such as customer identification, transaction monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities1.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 271

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the common methods of money laundering and terrorist financing is to structure transactions to avoid reporting or record keeping requirements. Structuring involves breaking down a large amount of cash into smaller transactions that fall below a specified threshold, or using different accounts, agents, locations, or days to conduct the transactions. Therefore, the fact that the two customers remit the same amount of funds, $2,500, each week to the samerecipient in a high-risk country is a red flag for possible money laundering or terrorist financing activity, as itsuggests that they are trying to evade the record keeping threshold of $3,000 for money transmitters in the United States12.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 27

FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags1

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage2

The6th AML Directive (6AMLD)introducedtighter rulesto combat financial crime, particularly aroundbeneficial ownership transparency.

Option D (Correct):6AMLD enhances transparencyby requiring accurate and verified datain central beneficial ownership registries, making it harder to hide illicit funds behind shell companies.

Option A (Incorrect):While some entities face increased scrutiny,crowdfunding platforms and football clubs were not the primary focusof 6AMLD.

Option B (Incorrect):6AMLD does not remove the EU’s obligation to conduct risk assessments;risk-based approaches remain centralto AML efforts.

Option C (Incorrect):TheEU AML Authority (AMLA), planned for2024, will centralize enforcement, but6AMLD did not createthis entity.

The compliance officer should perform the first step of reviewing the institution’s risk assessment before implementing any changes to the customer onboarding program. The risk assessment is a key component of the AML compliance program, as it identifies and measures the institution’s exposure to money laundering and terrorist financingrisks. The risk assessment should be updated regularly and reflect the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, and delivery channels. By reviewing the risk assessment, the compliance officer can determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the current customer onboarding program and identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. The compliance officer can also benchmark the institution’s risk assessment against the regulatory expectations and best practices in the industry.

The other steps are also important, but they should be performed after the risk assessment review. Revising training materials for frontline staff, conducting enhanced due diligence on high risk customers, and resolving substantive discrepancies in customer verification are all part of the customer onboarding program, but they depend on the risk assessment to provide the appropriate level of controls and procedures. For example, the training materials should reflect the risk assessment results and the revised customer onboarding policies. The enhanced due diligence should be applied to customers who pose a higher risk according to the risk assessment criteria. The customer verification should be consistent with the risk assessment and the customer identification program.

AML KYC Onboarding Lifecycle Process Flow | Guide – AdvisoryHQ

New EBA AML Guidelines on the use of Remote Customer Onboarding Solutions - Bird & Bird

KYC Onboarding Process 2023 - AML requirements - Sumsub

Review of any AML/CFT program begins with the Risk Based Approached. It should first check the internal system to identify risk factors and design program accordingly.

FIs mustcooperate with law enforcement requestswhile ensuringlegal compliance.

Option C (Correct):Adesignated compliance officershould handledocument preparation and internal review.

Option A (Incorrect):There isno requirementto wait for theCEO’s approval.

Option B (Incorrect):Privacy policies should already align withAML laws, delaying compliance isnot recommended.

Option D (Incorrect):Blocking a lawful requestcould lead tolegal and regulatory action.

The customer purchased property insurance that is twice the value of the business indicates potential money laundering. This could be a sign of insurance fraud, which is one of the predicate offenses for money laundering. Insurance fraud involves making false or exaggerated claims to obtain illegitimate financial benefits from an insurance company. The customer may have purchased an excessive amount of insurance to cover the value of the property and then intentionally damage or destroy it to claim the insurance payout. The customer may then use the insurance money to launder the proceeds of other criminal activities.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.21

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.21

ACAMS Chapter 1 Exam Questions, Question 682

6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD): Biggest Changes, Section 23

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.

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

A, B, C, D are all identified by CAMS 6th Edition and FATF as primary financial crime risks for e-commerce platforms:

A: Platforms can be exploited to launder money by processing the movement of criminal proceeds under the guise of legitimate sales.

B: Use of stolen credit/debit cards for online purchases is a common fraud and ML technique.

C: Fraud schemes (such as chargebacks or fake listings) are widespread on e-commerce platforms.

D: E-commerce platforms can serve as fronts for illicit goods or services, masking the true nature of transactions.

E and F are not commonly cited as principal inherent risks in AML/CTF guidance.

Fraud and financial crime are often associated withsudden resignations, attempts to evade scrutiny, and financial behaviors inconsistent with legitimate income.

Option A (Correct):Being evasive about past employment suggests potential undisclosed misconduct.

Option D (Correct):Living beyond one’s means is a major financial crime red flag, indicating possible fraud or illicit earnings.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Nationality alone does not indicate fraud risk.

Option C (Incorrect):Having friends in high-risk industries is not necessarily a direct red flag.

Common Red Flags for Employee-Related Financial Crime:

Reluctance to take vacations or change roles (attempting to conceal wrongdoing).

Sudden resignation or disappearance following internal investigations.

Unusual financial activity, including large unexplained deposits.

Best Practices for Fraud Prevention in Corporations:

Regularly monitor employees in high-risk roles (e.g., finance, procurement).

Use whistleblower channels to detect internal misconduct.

Conduct thorough background checks before hiring employees.

 The Head of Compliance is responsible for overseeing and managing the AML compliance program of the organization. When an external auditor identifies a finding that indicates a failure to comply with a regulatory requirement, the Head of Compliance should take prompt and appropriate action to address the issue and prevent recurrence. The best course of action is to submit a corrective action plan with a target timeline to the auditor and the relevant regulator, demonstrating the organization’s commitment to remediate the finding and improve its AML compliance program. The corrective action plan should include the root cause analysis of the finding, the specific actions to be taken, the responsible parties, the expected outcomes, and the deadlines forcompletion. The Head of Compliance should also monitor the progress of the corrective action plan and report any updates or challenges to the auditor and the regulator.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations address the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons (such as companies, foundations, associations, etc.) and legal arrangements (such as trusts, fiducies, anstalts, etc.) in Recommendations 24 and 25. These recommendations aim to prevent the misuse of legal persons and arrangements for money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit purposes, by requiring countries to ensure that accurate and up-to-date information on the natural persons who ultimately own or control them (the beneficial owners) is available to the competent authorities in a timely manner.

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 112

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 1, Task 1.2, Skill 1.2.2

Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership, FATF, October 2014

Recommendation 24: Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons, FATF

[Recommendation 25: Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements], FATF

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) involves manipulating trade transactions to move illicit funds rather than goods. One common technique is over-invoicing, where an exporter intentionally inflates the invoice value of goods. In this scenario, an England-based exporter would over-invoice a shipment to Cyprus. By doing so, the exporter creates a surplus amount that can be transferred back to the terrorist organization in England, effectively disguising the movement of illicit funds12.

Money launderers usehigh-value goods(e.g., jewelry, art, and precious metals) todisguise illicit funds.

Option C (Correct):Requesting ahandwritten receipt for a cash purchasesuggests anattempt to avoid record-keeping, a knownmoney laundering technique.

Option A (Incorrect):Buying gold bars withcash and cryptocurrencyisunusualbut notinherently illegalunless the amounts are suspicious.

Option B (Incorrect):Credit card payments are traceableanddo not raise immediate red flags.

Option D (Incorrect):Kimberly Process-certified diamondsare legally sourced, and requesting themdoes not indicate suspicious intent.

The board of directors or designated specialized committee should be provided with statistical data regarding SARs/STRs filed during the reported period, such as the number, type, value, and geographic distribution of the reports, as well as any trends or patterns identified. This information helps the board or committee to oversee the effectiveness of the firm’s AML program, assess the level of compliance risk, and allocate appropriate resources and training. Providing all possible details, names of customers, or copies of SARs/STRs may compromise the confidentiality of the reports, violate data protection laws, or expose the firm to legal liability.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (6th Edition), Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 223.

The Role of the Money Laundering Reporting Officer - ICAEW, page 14.

FIs must haveeffective sanctions screeningprocesses toprevent transactions involving designated persons or entities.

Option A (Correct):Automated screening systemshelp financial institutionsidentify sanctioned individuals, entities, and countries in real time.

Option B (Incorrect):If a customer islisted on a sanctions list, the FImust freeze the account, not simply mark it "high-risk" and continue transactions.

Option C (Incorrect):Prohibited entities should not undergo EDD—transactions with them must beblocked or reported.

Option D (Incorrect):Freezing sanctioned assetsdoes not require board approval; it must bedone immediatelyas per regulations.

Sanctions Compliance Requirements:

Sanctioning Body

Examples of Sanctions Lists

U.S. (OFAC)

Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List

United Nations (UN)

UN Security Council Sanctions List

European Union (EU)

EU Consolidated Sanctions List

UK (OFSI)

UK Sanctions List

Why Sanctions Screening is Important:

Failing to comply can result in billions in fines (e.g., BNP Paribas paid $8.9 billion in OFAC fines).

Transactions involving sanctioned entities can be blocked, leading to regulatory scrutiny.

Automated screening tools (e.g., SWIFT, World-Check, LexisNexis) improve compliance efficiency.

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 CorruptionPerceptions 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.

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

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), a sound KYC program should consist of four essential elements: (i) customer acceptance policy; (ii) customer identification; (iii) on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts; and (iv) risk management. Therefore, B and D are the correct choices among the given options. A customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the bank is willing to accept and the conditions for doing so. A risk management system ensures that the bank has adequate policies, procedures, and controls to identify, measure, monitor, and mitigate the risks arising from its KYC program.

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, a risk-based approach for EDD means that the FI applies more or less stringent measures depending on the level of risk posed by each client1. This allows the FI to allocate its resources more efficiently and effectively, and to focus on the clients that pose the highest risk of money laundering or terrorist financing2. Applying EDD for every new client, regardless of their risk profile, may not be the best use of the FI’s resources, and may not reflect the proportionality and relevance of the EDD measures3.

 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, andprovide 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 andfactual information, but this is not an action they should take when submitting a request, but rather when responding to a request from another FIU12.

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

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the U.S. government to subpoena records from any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the U.S., regardless of whether the foreign bank has a physical presence in the U.S. or not. The subpoena may request any records relating to the correspondent account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the U.S. If the foreign bank fails to comply with the subpoena, the U.S. government may direct any U.S. financial institution to terminate its correspondent relationship with the foreign bank and impose civil penalties.

The CAMS 6th Edition highlights that a risk-based approach enables organizations to efficiently allocate compliance resources, focusing efforts on areas presenting the highest risk, thereby ensuring both regulatory compliance and operational effectiveness.

“A risk-based approach allows firms to concentrate resources and controls where the risk of ML/TF is highest, while applying simplified measures to lower-risk areas. This enhances both effectiveness and efficiency.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, AML Compliance Program: Risk-Based Approach)

Incorrect Options:

A: Cost savings may occur, but it is not the main advantage.

B: Audits may still be required, just less frequently for low-risk customers.

D: Risk-based approaches are tailored, not standardized, across regions.

 these are the essential components of an effective anti-money laundering program for any financial institution, especially an offshore one. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, an anti-money laundering program should include the following elements1:

A risk assessment that identifies and evaluates the money laundering and terrorist financing risks faced by the institution, and the measures taken to mitigate them.

A compliance program that establishes policies, procedures, and controls to prevent, detect, and report money laundering and terrorist financing activities, and to comply with the applicable laws and regulations of the host and chartering countries.

A designated compliance officer who is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of the compliance program, and for liaising with the relevant authorities and stakeholders.

A training program that provides regular and appropriate education and awareness to senior management and staff on their roles and responsibilities in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, and on the latest trends and typologies in these areas.

An independent audit function that reviews and tests the adequacy and effectiveness of the compliance program, and reports the findings and recommendations to senior management and the board of directors.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s capital adequacy requirements for the host country (answer A) are not directly related to anti-money laundering, but rather tothe prudential regulation and supervision of banks. They are important for ensuring the financial soundness and stability of banks, but they are not sufficient to prevent or combat money laundering and terrorist financing2.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 139-140. 2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Bank for International Settlements.

The customer directing the payment of the money borrowed to an unrelated third party is a red flag for potential money laundering, as it could indicate layering or integration of illicit funds. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they could warrant further monitoring or due diligence depending on the customer profile and risk assessment.

Customer composition and product offerings are two important factors that affect the level of risk exposure for a financial institution (FI) in terms of money laundering and terrorist financing. Customer composition refers to the types of customers that the FI serves, such as individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, or politically exposed persons (PEPs). Different customer segments may pose different levels of risk depending on their activities, sources of funds, geographic locations, and connections to other entities. For example, customers that are cash-intensive, have complex ownership structures, operate in high-risk jurisdictions, or are associated with PEPs may present higher risk indicators than customers that are transparent, regulated, and operate in low-risk jurisdictions12. Product offerings refer to the types of products, services, and transactions that the FI provides, such as deposits, loans, wire transfers, trade finance, or digital assets. Different products, services, and transactions may have different levels of vulnerability to money laundering and terrorist financing depending on their features, complexity, volume, and speed. For example, products that are anonymous, involve high-value or cross-border transfers, enable rapid movement of funds, or involve new or emerging technologies may present higher risk indicators than products that are identifiable, involve low-value or domestic transfers, require multiple verification steps, or involve established or traditional technologies12.

1: Risk Assessment: Risk Factors & Mitigating Measures2

2: Risk Assessment: Process, Examples, & Tools1