ACAMS CCAS Dumps Questions Answers

The ability to monitor the cryptoasset for unusual activity directly impacts the residual AML risk, as effective monitoring enables detection and prevention of illicit transactions. Even if a blockchain is public or private (A), or the asset is profitable (B), the lack of proper monitoring mechanisms increases risk. The number of exchanges supporting the asset (D) is less significant than monitoring capability.

AML frameworks and DFSA guidance stress that risk mitigation depends heavily on effective transaction monitoring.

Ongoing monitoring is the continuous analysis of customer activity to detect unusual or suspicious patterns over time.

Anonymity red flags in crypto include the use of:

Decentralized or hardware wallets (A): These wallets are often unhosted and can facilitate anonymous transfers across borders, complicating AML controls.

Mixing services (B): These obscure transaction trails by blending multiple users’ funds, enhancing anonymity and increasing ML risk.

Privacy-oriented email services (C), fraudulent scheme-linked assets (D), and unusual sign-on activity (E) are also risk indicators but not specifically tied to anonymity in cryptoasset transactions.

AML guidance and thematic reviews emphasize A and B as key anonymity-related red flags.