CAMS Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Questions and Answers

A law enforcement agency may request account opening documents and account statements from the institution to facilitate its investigation of a suspicious transaction report (STR). These documents can provide valuable information about the identity, background, source of funds, and transaction patterns of the customer, as well as any red flags or anomalies that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activities. Account opening documents may include identification documents, verification documents, customer due diligence forms, risk assessment forms, etc. Account statements may include transaction details, balances, fees, charges, etc.

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 115-116

FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 20131, p. 20

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 20172, p. 11

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.

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.

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

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.

Microstructuring is a method of money laundering that involves breaking down large transactions into smaller amounts that are below the reporting threshold or the level of scrutiny of financial institutions. One of the red flags of microstructuring is frequent visits to make cash deposits of nominal amounts, as this may indicate an attempt to avoid detection and conceal the source or destination of illicit funds. Other red flags of microstructuring include checking accounts receiving cash deposits in amounts under $1,000 as infrequently as several times a month, followed by ATM withdrawals in foreign countries, or deposits that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity.

FinCEN Advisory – FIN-2010-A001, page 4

Red Flags of Money Laundering | PPT, slide 9

Red Flags of Microstructuring | CAMS Exam Preparation | ACAMS

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

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 7, pages 156-157

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

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

Dealers in antiques, precious metals, precious stones, jewelry, and art are advised to follow these practices to reduce the element of money laundering risk:

Verify the identities of all new vendors and customers and conduct due diligence on them. This is to ensure that the dealers know who they are dealing with and can assess the risk level of each customer or vendor. Due diligence may include obtaining and verifying identification documents, checking against sanctions lists or watchlists, obtaining information on the source and purpose of funds, and applying a risk-based approach to the level and frequency of due diligence.

Avoid accepting cash payment from the buyers. This is to prevent the dealers from being used as a conduit for laundering illicit cash or facilitating cash smuggling. Cash transactions are more difficult to trace and may indicate attempts to evade reporting or record-keeping requirements. Dealers should encourage the use of non-cash payment methods, such as bank transfers, cheques, or credit cards, and keep records of all payment transactions.

Insist all vendors submit an appropriate license issued by enforcement agencies authorizing the sale. This is to ensure that the dealers are not involved in the trade of stolen, smuggled, or counterfeit goods, which may be linked to money laundering or other criminal activities. Dealers should verify the authenticity and validity of the licenses and keep copies of them for record-keeping purposes.

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones, pages 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, 21-22

AML-CFT Handbook for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones, pages 25-26, 37-38, 52-53

The anti-money laundering framework for precious stones and metals dealers in Singapore, pages 7-8, 11-12, 15-16

Dealers in Precious Metals, Stones or Jewels Required to Establish Anti-Money Laundering Programs, pages 2-3, 6-7, 10-11

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 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is a global standard-setting body for the prudential regulation of banks. It does not have any formal authority to enforce its standards, but relies on its members’ commitment and peer pressure to implement them. The BCBS’s principles on customer due diligence (CDD) are part of its guidelineson anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), which aim to enhance the soundness and integrity of banking systems. The BCBS’s principles on CDD provide guidance to banks and bank supervisors on the essential elements of a CDD programme, such as customer acceptance, identification, verification, risk assessment, monitoring, and record-keeping. The BCBS’s principles on CDD are not legally binding, but are intended to be a benchmark for national practices and for banks to design their own policies and procedures. The BCBS’s principles on CDD are consistent with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CFT.

Customer due diligence for banks 1, BCBS, October 2001.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision report on customer due diligence 2, Journal of Banking Regulation, 2002.

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].

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

The purchaser being a nominee is a red flag that indicates high potential for money laundering in a real estate purchase. A nominee is a person or entity that acts on behalf of another person or entity, usually to conceal the identity or beneficial ownership of the real owner. Money launderers may use nominees to purchase real estate with illicit funds, and then transfer the property to the real owner or sell it for a profit. This way, they can obscure the source and ownership of the funds, and integrate them into the legitimate economy12.

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, pp. 77-78

FATF, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing through the Real Estate Sector, June 20073, pp. 19-20

The customer’s wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and the large volume of activity with low month-end balance are two facts that should be considered during the course of an investigation into possible money laundering. These facts may indicate that the customer is trying to move funds from or to countries that have weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that are known to be a source or destination of illicitfunds12. They may also suggest that the customer is using a technique called “smurfing” or “structuring”, which involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting34. The other two facts are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, as the customer may have a legitimate reason to have a long-standing account at the bank or to be on the exempt list for currency transaction reporting requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most common methods of money laundering in the insurance industry is to purchase a policy with illicit funds and then request a refund of the premiums, either partially or fully, before the policy matures. This way, the money launderer can receive a legitimate payment from the insurance company, effectively washing the dirty money. This technique is also known as premium fraud or early surrender12

According to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the most significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the insurance industry are found in life insurance and annuity products, because such products allow a customer to place largeamounts of funds into the financial system and seamlessly transfer such funds to disguise their true origin34

Some indicators of potential money laundering through insurance products are: 12

The customer pays the premiums with cash, cashier’s checks, money orders, or other anonymous or unusual payment methods.

The customer overpays the premiums or makes multiple payments in excess of the required amount.

The customer cancels the policy during the free-look or grace period and requests a refund to a different account or a third party.

The customer purchases a policy that is inconsistent with their income, age, or risk profile.

The customer shows little interest in the benefits or terms of the policy, but is more concerned about the cancellation or surrender options.

1: AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, ComplyAdvantage, 2022

2: Anti Money Laundering (AML) In Insurance Industry In 2021, Financial Crime Academy, 2023

3: Money laundering in the insurance industry, Insurance Commission, 2022

4: Money laundering in the insurance industry, Atty. Dennis B. Funa, Business Mirror, 2016

[5]: Anti-Money Laundering Requirements: FAQs for Insurance Companies, FinCEN, 2005

According to the FATF Recommendations, the international standard for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, beneficial owners are the natural persons who ultimately own or control a customer or the natural persons on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted1 The beneficial ownership criterion is not based on the legal title or the nominal ownership of the funds, but on the effective control or the ultimate entitlement to the funds. Therefore, having signature authority over the account, being the person in whose name an account is opened, or being a trusted party in a correspondent banking relationship are not sufficient to determine the beneficial ownership of funds. These may be indicators of legal ownership or nominee arrangements, but they do not necessarily reflect the true ownership or control of the funds. The most effective criterion for determining the beneficial ownership of funds is having control over such funds or entitlement to such funds, either directly or indirectly, through ownership, voting rights, contractual agreements, trusts, or other means2345

1: FATF Recommendations, 2012, Recommendation 10 and Interpretive Note

2: Beneficial Ownership Meaning and Regulation, Investopedia, 2022

3: Ultimate Beneficial Ownership: Understanding Where The Money Comes From, ComplyAdvantage, 2022

4: Beneficial ownership and Irish investment funds, A&L Goodbody, 2021

5: Asset Management and Investment Funds Legal and Regulatory Update, Arthur Cox, 2020

 The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation that should cause an anti-money laundering specialist the most concern is B: Financial institutions should not keep anonymous accounts. This is because anonymous accounts are accounts that are opened or maintained without verifying the identity of the customer or the beneficial owner, or with fictitious or incomplete information. Anonymous accounts pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the origin, destination, and purpose of illicit funds, and to evade the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions. Therefore, the FATF Recommendation 10 requires financialinstitutions to identify and verify the identity of their customers and the beneficial owners, and to prohibit the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts or accounts in obviously fictitious names1.

The other options are also FATF Recommendations, but they are less relevant or applicable to the scenario. Option A: Financial institutions should not warn their customers when information relating to them is being reported to the competent authorities, is the FATF Recommendation 21, which aims to prevent tipping-off, i.e., alerting the customer that they are being investigated or reported for money laundering or terrorist financing. However, this does not directly address the issue of identity verification or anonymous accounts2. Option C: Financial institutions should maintain all necessary suspicious transaction report records on transactions, both domestic and international, for at least 5 years, is the FATF Recommendation 11, which aims to ensure that financial institutions have adequate and consistent records of their customers and transactions, and that these records are available to the competent authorities when needed. However, this does not prevent the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts in the first place3. Option D: If financial institutions suspect that funds stem from criminal activity,they should be required to close the account, is not a FATF Recommendation, but rather a possible action that financial institutions may take in accordance with their risk assessment and policies. However, the FATF does not mandate or recommend the closure of accounts as a general rule, and advises that financial institutions should consult with the competent authorities before taking such action, as it may alert the customer or compromise the investigation4.

1: FATF Recommendation 10: Customer due diligence, 1 2: FATF Recommendation 21: Tipping-off and confidentiality, 2 3: FATF Recommendation 11: Record keeping, 3 4: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to Suspicious Transaction Reporting, 5

The bank’s existing anti-money laundering training is not adequate to be delivered to the employees of the newly acquired credit card business, because anti-money laundering training needs to be tailored and focused on the risks specific to the business. Credit card businesses face different types of money laundering risks than retail banks, suchas card-not-present fraud, identity theft, card skimming, and prepaid card abuse. Therefore, the anti-money laundering training for credit card businesses should cover the specific red flags, indicators, typologies, and mitigation measures related to these risks, as well as the relevant laws and regulations that apply to credit card businesses.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.31

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.21

Certification Candidate Handbook, Section 3.22

Latest CAMS Exam Questions, Question 433

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the challenges of information sharing within a financial group is the compliance with privacy and data protection rules that may vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, before sharing information about a customer with an affiliate, a bank should consider whether such sharing is permitted by the applicable laws and regulations, and whether the customer has consented to it. The other options are not relevant factors for information sharing in the case of an investigation.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 971; ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22

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

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 97

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation, page 8

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, video 3.4: Tipping Off and Confidentiality

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 8, Answer B

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

During an internal investigation, employees should be instructed to do the following actions:

Inform counsel of all request for documentation: This is to ensure that the legal rights and obligations of the organization and the employees are protected and respected. Counsel can also advise on the scope, relevance, and confidentiality of the requested documents1.

Make copies of all documents provided to law enforcement: This is to maintain a record of the information that has been disclosed and to prevent any loss or alteration of the original documents. Copies should be made before the documents are handed over to law enforcement2.

Keep a log of the documents requested: This is to track the progress and status of the investigation and to avoid any duplication or omission of the requested documents. The log should include the date, time, description, and location of the documents, as well as the name and contact details of the person who requested and received them3.

Providing corporate documents directly to law enforcement, on the other hand, is not an action that employees should be instructed to do during an internal investigation. This is because law enforcement may not have the legal authority or the proper warrant to access the documents, and doing so may violate the privacy or confidentiality of the organization or the employees. Employees should consult with counsel before providing any documents to law enforcement4.

1: Internal money laundering reporting | The Law Society5 2: How to Conduct Effective AML Investigations - Blog | Unit212 3: What Is The Importance Of An Internal Investigation?4 4: Anti-Money Laundering: 5 Steps to Conduct an Audit3

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

Bringing $15,000 worth of chips into the casino is a red flag because it could indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the currency transaction reporting (CTR) requirement for cash transactions over $10,0001. Requesting a wire transfer to an unrelated third party is another red flag because it couldindicate that the customer is trying to conceal the source or destination of the funds, or transfer them to a high-risk jurisdiction2.

1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.1: Regulatory Requirements, Slide 8 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.2: Money Laundering Methods and Red Flags, Slide 11

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks, the compliance function should provide an evaluation of a bank’s policies and procedures independent from its management. The compliance function is responsible for ensuring that the bank adheres to the relevant laws, regulations, and standards on customer due diligence, anti-money laundering, and combating the financing of terrorism. The compliance function should also monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the bank’s customer due diligence policies and procedures, identify and report any breaches or deficiencies, and recommend corrective actions or improvements. The compliance function should have sufficient authority, independence, resources, and access to information to perform its duties effectively.

Customer due diligence for banks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001, paragraphs 55-56

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, page 172

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 3, Task 3.1, Skill 3.1.2

Anti-Money-Laundering Guidance: Basel Committee Consultative Paper …, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, February 2001, page 2

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

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

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

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

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

On-line banking offers a significant money laundering risk to a financial institution because:

The nature of on-line banking can make it difficult to establish who is controlling the account. On-line banking allows customers to access their accounts remotely, without face-to-face contact with the financial institution. This can pose challenges for verifying the identity and legitimacy of the account holder, especially if the account is opened on-line or through a third-party intermediary. On-line banking can also facilitate the use of anonymous or fictitious identities, or the use of proxies or nominees to hide the true beneficial owner of the account.

The ease of access through the internet enables cross border movement of funds. On-line banking allows customers to transfer funds quickly and easily across different jurisdictions, without physical movement of cash or other instruments. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as funds can be moved to or from high-risk countries or regions, or through multiple accounts or financial institutions, to obscure the origin, destination, or purpose of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to access or use alternative payment systems or virtual currencies, which may have lower regulatory oversight or transparency standards than traditional banking systems.

The speed of electronic transaction enables execution of multiple complex transactions within short time frame. On-line banking allows customers to conduct transactions in real time, with minimal or no human intervention or verification. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as customers can execute multiple transactions in a short period of time, or use complex transaction structures or patterns, to avoid detection or reporting thresholds, or to conceal the source, nature, or ownership of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to use automated or algorithmic trading systems, which may generate large volumes of transactions that are difficult to monitor or analyze.

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pages 139-140

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.1, Skill 2.1.1

Online Banking and Money Laundering, ACAMS Today, September 2012

According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36, one of the methods that financial institutions can use to identify suspicious or unusual activity is to monitor transactions for red flags or indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing. Some of the common red flags are:

Transactions that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds

Transactions that involve high-risk countries or jurisdictions, especially those with weak or inadequate anti-money laundering regulations, or those known to be sources or destinations of illicit funds

Transactions that involve the use of complex or unusual financial instruments or structures, such as multiple accounts, intermediaries, or offshore entities, that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose

Transactions that involve the use of large amounts of cash, checks, or monetary instruments, especially if they are structured or aggregated to avoid reporting or recordkeeping requirements

Transactions that involve the use of third parties or nominees, such as relatives, associates, or shell companies, to conceal the identity, ownership, or control of the funds or assets

Option B is a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves sending large number of high dollar international wires to different countries, which could indicate that the customer is involved in layering or integration stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are moved across borders and disguised as legitimate transfers. This transaction type also raises the risk of exposure to sanctions, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities, depending on the destination and purpose of the wires.

Option D is also a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves depositing a lot of checks drawn on banks in foreign countries, which could indicate that the customer is involved in placement or layering stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system or converted into other forms of value. This transaction type also raises the risk of exposure to fraud, counterfeit, or forgery, depending on the origin and authenticity of the checks.

Option A is not a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves making regular cash deposits of a few hundred dollars every few days, which could be consistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds, especially if the customer is an ice cream vendor who operates in cash. This transaction type does not raise any red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing, unless there is evidence that the cash deposits are structured or aggregated to avoid reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Option C is also not a transaction type that warrants investigation, as it involves writing multiple checks for a few hundred dollars to the same dozen payees every two weeks, which could be consistent with the customer’s profile, business, or source of funds, especially if the payees are suppliers, employees, or contractors of the customer. This transaction type does not raise any red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing, unless there is evidence that the checks are used to facilitate illicit activities, such as bribery, kickbacks, or tax evasion.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36

Red Flags And Atypical Customer Behavior: Anti-Money Laundering Awareness

4 Red Flags of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing

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

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pages 171-172

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 3, Task 3.1, Skill 3.1.2

Anti-Money Laundering & Know Your Customer eBook, Chapter 5, pages 63-64

Summary of the Global Anti-Money Laundering Know Your Customer Policy, page 3

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

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

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

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 BSA/AML Manual1, once a financial institution files a SAR, it should maintain a copy of the SAR and the original or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years from the date of filing the SAR. The supporting documentation should be identified and maintained by the financial institution as such, and be deemed to have been filed with the SAR. The financial institution should make all supporting documentation available to FinCEN or any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, or any federal regulatory authority that examines the financial institution for compliance with the BSA, upon request. Therefore, the best action to take regarding a particular account once suspicious activity is reported by the institution is to secure all supporting documentation, as it may be needed for further investigation or examination.

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

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

According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 37, one of the red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing is the use of nominees, trusts, or third parties to hide the identity, ownership, or control of the funds or assets involved in the transaction. Nominees are individuals or entities that act on behalf of the actual or beneficial owners of a company, trust, or account, and may be used to conceal the source, destination, or purpose of the funds or assets. Nominees may also be used to evade taxes, sanctions, or regulatory requirements.

In this case, the compliance officer is unable to verify the identity of the beneficial owners of the company, and only information on the nominee owners was provided. This raises the suspicion that the company may be involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities, and that the nominee owners may be acting as fronts or intermediaries for the actual or beneficial owners. The compliance officer should conduct further due diligence on the company, the nominee owners, and the beneficial owners, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 37

Beneficial Ownership Meaning and Regulation - Investopedia

What is a nomineeshareholder? | LawBite

 The correct answer is B, as a customer acceptance policy is an essential element of KYC standards according to the Basel Committee’s Customer Due Diligence for Bankspaper1. A customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the bank is willing to accept, and the conditions and limitations that apply to such relationships. A customer acceptance policy helps the bank to avoid customers who are likely to pose a higher than average risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, or who are not willing to provide sufficient information for identification and verification purposes1.

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

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

According to the web search results, one of the methods that FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) use to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions is to conduct regional-level research and analysis of the money laundering and terrorist financing methods and trends using standards and templates used for FATF typologies reports12. Typologies are the various techniques used to launder money or financeterrorism, and typologies reports are the documents that describe these techniques, identify the vulnerabilities and risks, and provide case studies and best practices to prevent and detect them3. The FATF and its FSRBs produce typologies reports on a regular basis, covering different topics and sectors relevant to their regions and the global community3. By conducting regional-level research and analysis, FSRBs can enhance their understanding of the specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats and challenges faced by their member countries, and provide them with useful guidance and recommendations to mitigate these risks12.

The other options are not correct because they are either not the methods used by FSRBs to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions, or they are not consistent with the FATF standards and expectations. Requiring member countries to develop statistical metrics over money laundering and terrorist financing crimes may be a useful way to measure the effectiveness of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) systems, but it is not a method used by FSRBs to understand the risks in their regions. Rather, it is a requirement imposed by the FATF on all countries to collect and maintain comprehensive statistics on matters relevant to the effectiveness and efficiency of their AML/CFT systems4. Requiring participating financial institutions of their members to file suspicious transaction reports (STRs) to the regional body may be a violation of the FATF standards, which state that financial institutions should report any suspicious transactions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) of their country, not to any regional or international body5. Moreover, STRs are confidential and protected by legal provisions, and should not be disclosed to any third party without the consent of the FIU5. Conducting global research on money laundering and terrorist financing trends and reporting their findings in their own typologies report may be a duplication of the FATF’s work, as the FATF is the global standard-setter and policy-maker for AML/CFT, and produces typologies reports that cover the global trends and issues3. FSRBs should focus on the regional-level research and analysis, and coordinate and cooperate with the FATF and other FSRBs to share information and experiences12.

 5678910

 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 orentity 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]

An institution should focus on the appropriateness of having a centralized review of suspicious transactions and recommendations to file an STR to ensure consistency. This is because a centralized review process can help to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of STRs, as well as to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies. A centralized review process can also facilitate the analysis of trends, patterns, and typologies of suspicious transactions across the institution, and enable the communication and coordination with relevant stakeholders, such as law enforcement, regulators, or other financial institutions.

=

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1, page 1911

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 5.3, video time 2:30-4:002

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 124, page 2843

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

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

1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Core principles for effective banking supervision, 2012, Principle 14 and Essential Criterion 14.1

2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, 2014, Paragraphs 30 and 31

The first thing the anti-money laundering specialist should do is to conduct a risk assessment of the bank’s international electronic fund transfer activity. This is to identify and measure the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the bank’s products, services, customers, and geographic locations. A risk assessment can help the anti-money laundering specialist to:

Understand the nature and extent of the bank’s exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing threats and vulnerabilities.

Establish a risk-based approach to the design and implementation of the anti-money laundering compliance program, including policies, procedures, controls, monitoring, reporting, and training.

Allocate appropriate resources and prioritize actions to mitigate the identified risks and enhance the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering compliance program.

Demonstrate to the regulators and auditors that the bank has a sound and comprehensive anti-money laundering compliance program that is commensurate with its risk profile and business activities.

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pages 167-168

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 3, Task 3.1, Skill 3.1.1

Anti-Money Laundering Bulletin November 2021 - Central Bank of Ireland, pages 4-5

Money Laundering through Money Remittance and Currency Exchange Providers, FATF, June 2010, pages 7-8

REGULATIONS - FIU, Part III, Regulation 9, pages 9-10

 The correct answer is B, because it describes a method of money laundering known as structuring or smurfing. This is when a customer or a group of customers break down large amounts of illicit funds into smaller transactions that are below the reporting threshold, and then send them to another customer or entity, often in another country. This way, they avoid triggering any suspicion or regulatory reporting by the bureau de change or money services business (MSB) that processes the wire transfers. Structuring or smurfing is a common technique used by money launderers to move funds across borders and disguise their origin and destination.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may require further investigation depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option A describes a regular and small wire transfer that may be legitimate, such as a remittance to a family member or a friend. Option Cdescribes a large volume of wire transfers that may be related to a seasonal or business activity, such as a holiday or a trade event. Option D describes a series of small wire transfers that may be coincidental or random, and do not necessarily add up to a significant amount.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, pages 36-37

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

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

Related practices are used to conceal the nature of the funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use similar methods to hide the true identity, source, or destination of the funds, such as using shell companies, front organizations, complex transactions, cash couriers, or cryptoassets. A compliance program should include measures to identify and verify the customers, beneficial owners, and counterparties involved in the transactions, as well as to monitor and report any suspicious or unusual activities.

Similar techniques are used to move funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use the same stages of placement, layering, and integration to move funds through the financial system. Placement is the introduction of illicit funds into the legitimate financial system, such as by depositing cash, purchasing assets, or transferring funds electronically. Layering is the separation of the funds from their source, such as by using multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or intermediaries. Integration is the re-entry of the funds into the legitimate economy, such as by investing in businesses, real estate, or securities. A compliance program should include measures to detect and prevent the movement of illicit funds through the financial system, such as by applying risk-based due diligence, record-keeping, and transaction limits.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the6th edition)

Q Law enforcement may be given access to a financial institution customer’s financial records if they serve a legal summons or subpoena, or if they have circumstantial evidence to suspect money laundering. These are two of the exceptions to the general rule that financial institutions must protect the privacy of their customers’ financial information under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) of 19781. The RFPA alsoallows access to customer records in other situations, such as with the customer’s consent, in response to judicial orders, or for certain intelligence or counterintelligence purposes1.

Option A is incorrect because a suspicious transaction report (STR) does not automatically grant law enforcement access to the customer’s financial records. The STR is a confidential document that is filed by the financial institution to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the country, and the FIU may decide to share the information with law enforcement if it deems appropriate2. However, law enforcement still needs to follow the RFPA procedures to obtain the customer’s records from the financial institution.

Option C is incorrect because the investigation of a customer being made public in the media does not give law enforcement the right to access the customer’s financial records. The media exposure may raise the public interest or the urgency of the investigation, but it does not override the RFPA requirements. Law enforcement still needs to obtain a legal summons, subpoena, or other valid authorization to access the customer’s records from the financial institution.

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

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, the decision to keep or close an account after filing a suspicious transaction report (STR) should be based on a risk-based approach that considers the nature and severity of the suspicious activity, the customer profile and relationship, the regulatory and legal obligations, and the reputational and operational risks for the institution. The financial impact, the administrativecosts, and the number of accounts closed are not the primary factors in determining the appropriate course of action. Therefore, the correct answer is B. Procedures to ascertain the potential risk to the organization.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section: Account Closure, pp. 211-212.

 A financial institution can verify the nature and purpose of a business and its legitimacy by using an independent information verification process, such as by accessing public and private databases. This method can help the financial institution to check the names of businesses against anti-money laundering (AML) watchlists, parse and analyze ownership information to determine beneficial ownership structure, and run the beneficial owners themselves through identity verification and AML watchlist checks1. This can also help the financial institution to comply with the regulatory requirements for customer due diligence (CDD), which include obtaining and analyzing sufficient customer information to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile2. Other methods, such as reviewing a copy of the corporation’s latest audited reports and accounts, undertaking a company search or other commercial inquiries, or reviewing the company’s website, may not provide sufficient or reliable information to verify the nature and purpose of a business and its legitimacy.

Customer due diligence for banks by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001.

How to Verify Legitimate Businesses and Merchants by Trulioo, March 2021.

One of the main challenges and risks for online banks is the verification of customer identity and the prevention of identity fraud. Online banks are more vulnerable to moneylaundering and terrorist financing because they do not have face-to-face contact with their customers and may rely on third-party sources or digital methods to verify customer information. Therefore, the most important recommendation for the anti-money laundering expert to make is that the online bank ensures that prospective new customers can be properly identified and that their identity documents and information are verified using reliable and independent sources. This is also in line with the international standards and best practices for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, such as the FATF Recommendations, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, and the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive123

The other options are less important or less effective than ensuring customer identification. Limiting the amount that can be processed per transaction may reduce the exposure to large-scale money laundering, but it does not prevent the use of multiple transactions or accounts to launder smaller amounts. Setting up automated programs to analyze transactions for money laundering activity may enhance the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions, but it does not address the root cause of money laundering, which is the concealment of the source and ownership of illicit funds. Ensuring that a firewall is set up to protect the transactions may improve the security and confidentiality of the online banking system, but it does not prevent the misuse of the system by money launderers who have legitimate access to the system123

1: Anti-Money Laundering Guide for Digital Banks by sanctions.io, 2022

2: The fight against money laundering: Machine learning is a game changer by McKinsey, 2021

3: FATF Guidance on Digital Identity, 2020

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

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) study guide, 6th edition, page 105, the correct answer is C. It can be difficult to determine if there is negative media associated with counterparties solely from the customer's account activity and KYC file.

The study guide explains that negative media can include news articles, government sanctions lists, and other sources of public information that may indicate that a counterparty is involved in illicit activities. However, this information may not be readily available in a customer's account activity or KYC file, and may require additional research or investigation.

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

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.

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

Under the Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles, conducting enhanced due diligence (EDD) is an obligation for correspondent banking clients that present greater risks. This may include conducting additional research and analysis of the client's background, ownership structure, and transactions. EDD may also involve obtaining additional documentation, verifying the client's identity, and conducting periodic reviews to ensure ongoing compliance. The level of EDD required should be commensurate with the level of risk posed by the correspondent banking relationship. Therefore, option B and D are incorrect. Option A is not specific enough to address the question. Option C is the correct answer as it highlights the importance of senior management approval for high-risk relationships, which is a key component of EDD.

The USA PATRIOT Act stipulates that US banks that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign banks must keep identification records of foreign bank owners with 50% or more ownership in the bank. This ensures that the US government can track the flow of funds through the correspondent accounts and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Additionally, the US federal banking agency can require foreign banks to produce records or information related to any account opened in the US or other countries. This allows the agency to monitor the activities of foreign banks and ensure compliance with US regulations.

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

Correspondent banking is a service that allows banks to access financial services in different jurisdictions through intermediary banks, known as correspondent banks. Correspondent banking can facilitate cross-border transactions, foreign exchange, and other financial activities for banks and their customers. However, correspondent banking also poses various risks, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, corruption, tax evasion, and sanctions evasion. Correspondent banks may have no direct relationship with the customers of the respondent banks, making it difficult to verify their identity and monitor their transactions. Correspondent banks may also rely on the compliance programs of the respondent banks, which may not meet the standards of the correspondent banks’ jurisdictions.

One of the risk factors that increases the risk for a correspondent bank is being a major service provider to money service businesses (MSBs). MSBs are entities that provide money transmission, currency exchange, check cashing, prepaid cards, and other similar services. MSBs are often considered high-risk customers, because they may serve as conduits for illicit funds, especially if they operate in jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering regulations or oversight. MSBs may also have a large and diverse customer base, making it challenging to conduct customer due diligence and transaction monitoring. Therefore, correspondent banks that provide services to MSBs may face higher exposure to money laundering and other financial crimes, and may need to apply enhanced due diligence and risk mitigation measures.

Understanding Risk in Correspondent Banking

GUIDANCE ON CORRESPONDENT BANKING SERVICES

Correspondent Bank: Definition and How It Works

Correspondent banking – why it’s important to understand the risks

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

Request information and documentation from the client on the background of the transaction (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 46).

Contact the client advisor to learn if he has any insight on the transaction background (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

Review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

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

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

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, ongoing training is a key element of an effective anti-money laundering compliance program, as it ensures that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the latest regulatory developments, and the emerging risks and trends in money laundering and terrorist financing1. Ongoing training also helps to foster a culture of compliance within the institution, where the staff are committed to adhering to the policies and procedures, detecting and reporting suspicious activities, and protecting the institution from reputational and legal damages2.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.5, page 53

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.6, page 54

The individual responsible for setting the anti-money laundering software parameters should recommend ensuring that the alert parameters are based on risk, rather than on default software rules. This means that the software should be configured to generate alerts only when transactions or customers exhibit a high level of risk, based on factors such as the source and destination of funds, the amount and frequency of transactions, the type and purpose of the account, the customer profile and behavior, and the presence of any red flags or indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing. By aligning the alert parameters with the risk assessment of the financial institution, the software can reduce the number of false positives and focus on the most relevant and suspicious cases, thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the anti-money laundering staff.

Setting AML Transaction Monitoring Thresholds 1, ComplyAdvantage, 2020.

Machine learning techniques for anti-money laundering (AML) analysis: a survey 2, Springer, 2018.

Anti Money Laundering (AML) Definition: Its History and How It Works 3, Investopedia, 2021.

Funds transfers are electronic payments that move money from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, countries, or currencies1. Funds transfers are commonly used for legitimate purposes, such as remittances, trade, or investment, but they can also be abused by money launderers, terrorists, or fraudsters to move illicit funds or conceal their origin or destination2. Therefore, financial institutions and other entities that offer funds transfer services are required to apply anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) measures, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting of suspicious activities2.

One of the red flags for funds transfers that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activity is when funds transfers are repeatedly sent to the same beneficiary out of line with the business purpose3. This could suggest that the originator and the beneficiary are colluding to layer or integrate illicit funds, or to evade reporting or sanctions requirements. For example, a business may send multiple funds transfers to the same supplier, but the amounts or frequencies do not match the invoices or contracts, or the supplier is located in a high-risk jurisdiction or is subject to sanctions. Alternatively, an individual may send frequent funds transfers to the same person, but the relationship or the reason for the transfers is unclear or inconsistent, or the person is associated with a criminal or terrorist organization. In such cases, the financial institution or the funds transfer service provider should conduct enhanced due diligence, verify the source and purpose of the funds, and report any suspicious activity to the relevant authorities.

1: Wire Transfer Definition - Investopedia

2: International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation - The FATF Recommendations | FATF

3: Wire Transfer Red Flags: Money Laundering & Fraud Risks - Alessa1

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.

 Submitting the concern anonymously to the bank’s internal Compliance Hotline is the most appropriate action that a bank CEO’s assistant should take when the bank CEO expenses large sums of money to a charitable organization run by the bank CEO’s direct family member. This is because this action would allow the assistant to report a potential case of fraud, conflict of interest, or misuse of funds without fear of retaliation or reprisal from the bank CEO. The Compliance Hotline is a confidential and secure channel for employees to raise any concerns or suspicions about unethical or illegal activities within the bank. The Compliance Hotline would then forward the concern to the relevant authorities or departments for further investigation and action.

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

The document titled “Anti-Fraud Policy” published by the World Bank Group. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that "The World Bank Group has established a Compliance Hotline to receive reports of suspected fraud or corruption in World Bank Group-financed projects or activities, or in the World Bank Group’s corporate procurement or administrative activities. The Compliance Hotline is available to all staff and external parties, such ascontractors, consultants, beneficiaries of World Bank Group-financed projects, and the general public.

Conducting anonymous transactions is the most likely activity to facilitate money laundering through online banking systems with inadequate controls. Anonymous transactions allow money launderers to hide their identity, source and destination of funds, and the purpose of their transactions from the authorities and the financial institutions. Online banking systems that do not have proper KYC, customer due diligence, and transaction monitoring controls are vulnerable to being exploited by money launderers who can use various techniques, such as encryption, proxy servers, virtual currencies, prepaid cards, and online gambling, to conduct anonymous transactions123.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 40-41, 43-44

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.4, Money Laundering Using New Payment Methods

1, Fighting money laundering in the age of online banking, virtual currencies and internet gambling | ERA Forum

2, Financial crime risk management in digital payments | McKinsey

3, The Relationship Between Digital Banking and Financial Crime

Using the customer profile and expected activity information, a financial institution should be able to identify transactions that are difficult to make economic sense. Transactions that don't make economic sense may be suspicious, and should be investigated further to determine if they may be related to money laundering or other illicit activities. For example, if a customer is profiting from a series of transactions that don't make economic sense, such as buying and selling the same stock multiple times in a short period of time, then this could be a sign of money laundering or other illicit activities.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, an effectiveanti-money laundering program should be subject to periodic independent testing by a qualified party, such as an internal or external auditor, a consultant, or a compliance professional1. This ensures that the program is compliant with the applicable laws and regulations, and that it meets the standards of sound risk management and internal controls2. The regulatory authorities, a member of senior management, or the anti-money laundering specialist may not have the necessary expertise, objectivity, or independence to conduct a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the program.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3, page 51

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.4, page 52

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.

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS 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 characteristic of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 recommendations is that they comprise global standards for countering money laundering, recognized by government bodies across the world. The FATF 40 recommendations provide a comprehensive framework of measures that countries should implement to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The recommendations are not mandatory, but are widely recognized and followed by countries across the globe. The recommendations cover a range of areas, including customer due diligence, record-keeping, suspicious activity reporting, and international cooperation.

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

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

1: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program

2: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 3: Conducting Customer Due Diligence

3: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 4: Ongoing Monitoring and Suspicious Activity Reporting

4: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 5: Identifying High-Risk Customers

5: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 6: Applying Enhanced Due Diligence Measures

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

Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 1.

Obtaining Documentation from an Institution: Law Enforcement Procedures

According to the CAMS manual 6th edition, the USA PATRIOT Act allows the US government to subpoena documents from foreign financial institutions (FIs) that have no presence in the US (option B). The manual states that "The USA PATRIOT Act provides US law enforcement agencies with the power to subpoena documents from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks or have no presence in the United States" (p. 77).

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is a form of cooperation between different countries for the purpose of collecting and exchanging information and evidence in criminal matters. MLA is usually governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties that establish the procedures and requirements for requesting and providing assistance. The first valid step in the MLA process is to send a formal request from the central authority of the requesting country to the central authority of the requested country. The central authority is the designated entity that is responsible for making, receiving, and facilitating the execution of MLA requests. The request should contain the necessary information and documents to enable the requested country to assess and execute the request, such as the nature and purpose of the request, the legal basis, the description of the assistance sought, the identity of the persons involved, the applicable legal provisions, and the deadline for the response. The request may also be accompanied by a commission letter of request, which is a judicial document that authorizes a foreign authority to perform certain acts on behalf of the requesting authority, such as taking evidence or statements from witnesses or suspects.

Guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61, 2.62, 2.63, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.

Retail banks typically have a high inherent risk of money laundering due to their provision of cash services. This is because cash is a preferred medium of exchange for criminals and terrorists, and retail banks provide a convenient way for them to move large sums of money without detection. Retail banks are also vulnerable to money laundering through the use of false identities and other deceptive practices. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 8).

Company ownership is held in bearer share form. Bearer share ownership can make it difficult to identify the actual owners of a company and is therefore considered a high risk for money laundering or terrorist financing. Enhanced due diligence measures may include obtaining additional identification and ownership information, conducting more frequent reviews of the account, and monitoring transactions more closely.

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

The practice of brokerage firms maintaining securities as nominees and the speed of the transactions are two factors specific to the securities industry that increase the exposure to money laundering risk. Nominee accounts can be used to conceal beneficial ownership and obscure transaction trails. The speed of transactions can make it difficult to detect and prevent suspicious activity in real time.

The most suspicious transaction indicators related to casino activities are:

A client requests a winnings check (cheque) in a third party’s name. This could indicate an attempt to conceal the source or ownership of the funds, or to evade reporting requirements.

Acquaintances bet against each other in even-money games and it appears they are intentionally losing to one of the parties. This could indicate a scheme to launder money through the casino by transferring funds from one party to another without attracting attention.

A client requests the transfer of winnings to the bank account of a third party in a country without an effective anti-money laundering regime. This could indicate an attempt to move funds to a high-risk jurisdiction or to a person or entity that is involved in illicit activities.

The option that is not suspicious is:

A new client who is a large volume player asks the casino operator about the ability to transfer the funds to other locations in the same country. This could be a legitimate inquiry from a high-net-worth individual who travels frequently and wants to access their funds conveniently.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 8, page 173

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-8.pdf

The customer activity that poses the highest risk of money laundering is making multiple cash deposits slightly below a required reporting limit. This could indicate a practice known as structuring or smurfing, which is a method of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting by financial institutions12. Structuring is a common technique used by money launderers to conceal the source, ownership, or destination of illicit funds3.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may require further due diligence or monitoring depending on the customer profile and the nature of the transaction. For example:

Transferring funds to pay for flight training lessons could be a legitimate educational expense, or it could be related to terrorist financing or other criminal activities. The financial institution should verify the identity and background of the customer and the recipient, and check for any red flags or suspicious indicators4.

Paying a supplier of precious metals at regular quarterly intervals could be a normal business practice, or it could be a way of moving or storing value in an alternative asset class. The financial institution should assess the customer’s source of funds, business rationale, and market conditions, and monitor for any changes or inconsistencies.

Conducting business in a country that represents a high risk of money laundering could be a legitimate commercial opportunity, or it could be a sign of involvement in illicit activities or tax evasion. The financial institution should apply enhanced due diligence measures, such as verifying the identity and reputation of the customer and the counterparties, obtaining information on the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and screening for any sanctions or adverse media.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 29: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 6, page 121: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-6.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 139: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 77: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

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

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 16

2: ComplyAdvantage, 5 AML Reputational Risk Considerations for 2023, link

3: Exam-Answer, Reputational Risk Consequences for Violating AML Laws, link

4: Unit21, 8 AML Penalties, Fines, and Sanctions + Examples You Should Avoid, link

According to the FATF Procedures for the Fourth Round of AML/CFT Mutual Evaluations1, jurisdictions that are determined to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing are subject to the FATF’s International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) process. The ICRG process involves the following actions for such jurisdictions:

Demonstrate a high-level commitment to swiftly resolve the identified deficiencies in the FATF mutual evaluation report. This commitment should be made in writing to the FATF President and should include an action plan with specific deadlines and milestones to address the deficiencies.

Report to FATF on the implementation of their progress under the enhanced follow-up mechanism. The FATF will monitor the progress of the jurisdiction through regular reports and on-site visits, and will decide whether the jurisdiction has made sufficient progress to exit the ICRG process or whether further actions are required, such as public statements, counter-measures, or suspension of membership.

The other options are not resulting actions for jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies, as they are either not part of the FATF procedures or not consistent with the FATF’s objectives and principles. For example, the FATF does not issue private statements regarding the level of compliance of a jurisdiction, nor does it allow a jurisdiction to appeal for a technical compliance re-rating based on its own criteria. The FATF also does not grant extensions of deadlines for jurisdictions to improve their regimes, as this would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the mutual evaluation process.

1: Mutual Evaluations - Financial Action Task Force

2: Procedures for the FATF Fourth Round of AML/CFT Mutual Evaluations

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

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

The increased activity is due to money order deposits. This could be a legitimate source of income for the customer’s export business, or it could be a way of disguising the origin or destination of the funds. The anti-money laundering specialist should verify the identity and background of the customer and the issuers of the money orders, and check for any red flags or suspicious indicators4.

Wire transfers are coming from a Financial Action Task Force member country. This could be a normal business practice, or it could be a sign of involvement in trade-based money laundering or other illicit activities. The anti-money laundering specialist should assess the customer’s source of funds, business rationale, and market conditions, and monitor for any changes or inconsistencies.

The client changed his address without advising the institution. This could be a simple oversight, or it could be a way of concealing the customer’s true location or identity. The anti-money laundering specialist should update the customer’s information, verify the new address, and check for any adverse media or sanctions.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 11: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-1.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 29: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 77: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 97: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-5.pdf

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

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

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.

Making payments via a company located in a jurisdiction that is known to have lax anti-money laundering controls is a sign of suspicious activity and should be reported. When making a payment of this nature, the insurance company should be aware of the client's source of funds and the possible risks associated with the transaction.

This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 595, which states: “Potential indicators of money laundering associated with Trust and Company Service Providers include the use of legal persons in jurisdictions with strict secrecy laws, structuring cash deposits into third party accounts, multi-jurisdictional wire transfers with no legal purpose, and frequent deposits to or withdrawals from bank accounts.”

Structured transactions are a common method of money laundering, where large amounts of cash are broken down into smaller deposits or withdrawals to avoid reporting thresholds or detection. The most effective tool to detect such transactions is a software program that can link apparently unrelated transactions by using various criteria, such as customer name, address, account number, identification number, transaction amount, date, time, location, etc. Such a program can help identify patterns, trends, and anomalies that may indicate money laundering activity.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.2: Common Money Laundering Methods, pp. 51-52

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course2, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.2: Common Money Laundering Methods

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Task 2.2: Implement risk-based CDD, EDD and ongoing due diligence policies, procedures and processes, p. 13

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the key steps in conducting an effective investigation of a potential money laundering or terrorist financing activity is to gather all relevant information about the customer and the transaction, including the nature and purpose of the account, the source and destination of funds,the expected account activity, and the customer’s risk profile1. In this case, the compliance officer should meet with the staff who opened the new account for the public official to obtain this information and assess whether the account is consistent with the customer’s profile and needs, or whether it indicates a possible attempt to conceal or launder illicit funds. Waiting for the new account to receive funds, calling the competentauthorities, or calling the official’s office are not appropriate actions at this stage, as they may compromise the investigation, alert the customer, or violate confidentiality rules1.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, page 1311

PEPs posehigher risks for corruption and money laundering, requiringenhanced due diligence (EDD).

Option D (Correct):Understanding aPEP’s source of wealth and fundsensureslegitimacy of transactions.

Option A (Incorrect):Commercial databases help identify PEPsbutdo not mitigate risk alone.

Option B (Incorrect):Lowering monitoring thresholds, not raising them, helps detect suspicious activity.

Option C (Incorrect):Regulatory approval isnot required, but internal risk assessments are.

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.

Money laundering through capital marketsoften involvespump-and-dump schemes, wash trading, and layering funds through rapid trading activity.

Option A (Correct):A sudden spike in demand for a low-priced security is a red flag for pump-and-dump schemes, where criminals manipulate the marketto inflate stock prices artificially before selling off shares for a profit.

Option B (Incorrect):A gradual decline in trading volume and price does not indicate suspicious activity related to money laundering.

Option C (Incorrect):An increase in demand for ETFs is common and not necessarily linked to money laundering.

Option D (Incorrect):Holding securities in one specific emerging market may indicate a geographic investment strategy, not necessarily money laundering.

Common Money Laundering Typologies in Capital Markets:

Pump-and-Dump Schemes– Fraudulently inflating stock prices to cash out illicit funds.

Wash Trading– Conductingself-tradesto create an illusion of high market activity.

Layering Funds Through Rapid Trading– Engaging infrequent buy-and-sell ordersto obfuscate the origin of funds.

Best Practices for AML in Capital Markets:

Monitor unusual trading volume and price fluctuations.

Use AI-driven surveillance systems to detect manipulative behavior.

Investigate transactions involving offshore brokers or shell entities.

According to section 313 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a covered financial institution (generally any U.S. bank or broker dealer in securities) is prohibited from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing a correspondent account in the U.S. for, or on behalf of, a foreign shell bank. A foreign shell bank is defined as a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. The only exception to this prohibition is if the foreign shell bank is a regulated affiliate of a depository institution, credit union, or foreign bank that maintains a physical presence in the U.S. or a foreign country, respectively. In that case, the U.S. financial institution must obtain a written certification from the foreign bank that it does not provide banking services to any other foreign shell banks.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) methodology, financial institutions (FIs) are required to consider filing a suspicious activity report (SAR) in situations where they suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are the proceeds of criminal activity or related to terrorist financing. One such situation is when a beneficiary of a transaction is a politically exposed person (PEP). PEPs are individuals who hold prominent public positions or have close associations with such individuals. Their involvement in transactions can raise red flags due to the potential risk of corruption, money laundering, or other illicit activities1.

1. D. The account received a large cash deposit followed by systematic automated teller machine (ATM) withdrawals until the balance was nominal.

This pattern of behavior, known as “structuring” or “smurfing,” is often associated with money laundering. The large cash deposit followed by smaller withdrawals in a systematic manner raises red flags and requires further investigation.

2. E. The customer conducts multiple cash transactions on a regular basis which do not match the customer’s occupation.

Conducting frequent cash transactions that do not align with the customer’s stated occupation or income source is suspicious. It suggests potential attempts to hide the true origin of funds or evade reporting requirements1.

D. Large Cash Deposit Followed by ATM Withdrawals:

The large cash deposit followed by systematic ATM withdrawals is indicative of structuring, a common money laundering technique. Structuring involves breaking down large sums of money into smaller transactions to avoid detection. In this case, the customer’s behavior warrants further scrutiny to determine the purpose behind these transactions.

E. Inconsistent Cash Transactions:

When a customer conducts multiple cash transactions that do not align with their stated occupation or income source, it raises suspicions. Such behavior may indicate an attempt to obscure the true origin of funds or evade reporting requirements. Investigating the reasons behind these inconsistent cash transactions is essential to assess potential money laundering risks1.

Terrorist financing (TF) differs from traditional money laundering, as funds can originate fromlegitimate sources(e.g., donations, charities) and often involvelow-value transactions.

Option A (Correct):Non-profits with no online presencecan beshell organizations used to finance terrorism.

Option C (Correct):Small-dollar payments to high-risk jurisdictions(e.g., FATF-listed countries)may indicate terrorist funding activity.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Crowdfunding payments with transparency and project detailsare generallylow-risk.

Option D (Incorrect):Charities helping refugeesmay behigh-risk but not automatically suspicious.

Option E (Incorrect):Structuring below reporting thresholds is more indicative of money laundering than terrorist financing.

Red Flags for Terrorist Financing:

Frequent low-value transactions to conflict zones.

Use of charities and non-profits as fronts for terror groups.

Funds moving through unregulated crowdfunding platforms.

Best Practices for Detecting Terrorist Financing:

Identify transactions involving known terrorist financing typologies.

Enhance monitoring of non-profit organizations operating in high-risk regions.

Use negative news screening to detect links to sanctioned entities.

FIUsexchange information through secure platformsto investigate financial crime cases.

Option B (Correct):TheEgmont Secure Webis theprimary communication platformforFIUs globally.

Option A (Incorrect):MLATsallow forformal legal cooperationbut arenot an FIU-to-FIU communication tool.

Option C (Incorrect):INTERPOL databasestrackcriminal records, not financial intelligence data.

Option D (Incorrect):TheUN Sanctions Listprovidesentity restrictions, not an FIU data-sharing mechanism.

Aproper investigation of unusual transactions requires a mix of data analysis, contextual review, and expert judgmentto assess potential risks.

Option B (Correct):Cross-referencing transactions with external factors(e.g.,political events, commodity price fluctuations, news reports) helps identifypotential links to illicit activities.

Option C (Correct):Therelationship managermay provide insights intowhether a transaction aligns with the customer’s known profile and business activity.

Option D (Correct):Arisk-based approachensures thathigher-risk transactions receive enhanced scrutiny, while lower-risk ones undergo standard monitoring.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Focusing only on transaction amountsignorescontextual factors, such asunusual behavior in low-value transactions.

Option E (Incorrect):Automated alerts are valuable but cannot replace human analysis and judgment.Manual reviews remain necessary for complex cases.

Red Flags in Unusual Transactions:

Large or frequent transactions inconsistent with a customer’s normal profile.

Payments from/to high-risk jurisdictions without a clear purpose.

Use of intermediaries or shell companies to move funds.

Best Practices for AML Investigations:

Use both qualitative and quantitative factorsto assess transaction risks.

Collaborate with business units(e.g., relationship managers) to understand client behavior.

Apply a risk-based approach to allocate investigation resources efficiently.

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the challenges of online financial technologies is the difficulty of verifying the identity and legitimacy of the customers and counterparties. This creates opportunities for money launderers and other criminals to exploit the anonymity and speed of online transactions to move and conceal illicit funds. The other options are not directly related to the money laundering risk posed by online financial technologies.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 5: Risk-Based Approach, page 133.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 7: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 203.

RegularKYC reviewsensure that high-risk customersare monitored for potential changes in their risk profile.

Option D (Correct):TheKYC manager must determine why the required review was missed and implement corrective measures to prevent future failures.

Option A (Incorrect):A missed reviewdoes not necessarily indicate suspicious activity, so filing a SAR at this stage isnot appropriate.

Option B (Incorrect):Removing a customer from the high-risk list without reassessment is a compliance violation.

Option C (Incorrect):Suspending account access without due processmay belegally questionable.

Best Practices for KYC Compliance Management:

Ensure automated KYC review tracking to avoid missed reviews.

Conduct risk-based periodic reviews on high-risk customers.

Implement escalation protocols for overdue KYC reviews.

 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.

TheUSA PATRIOT Actincludes provisions allowingthe U.S. government to seize assets linked to financial crime, even when held in foreign financial institutions.

Option A (Correct):Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Actprovides U.S. regulators with the authority toseize funds deposited in U.S. correspondent accounts of foreign banks if linked to illicit activity.

Option B (Incorrect):Section 314(a)focuses oninformation sharing between law enforcement and financial institutions.

Option C (Incorrect):Section 319(b)enables U.S. authorities toseize funds linked to foreign correspondent banking accounts, but319(a) specifically deals with extraterritorial forfeiture.

Option D (Incorrect):Section 314(b)allowsfinancial institutions to voluntarily share AML-related information.

Why This Matters:

Foreign banks using U.S. correspondent accounts can be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Helps U.S. law enforcement disrupt global money laundering networks.

Encourages financial institutions to enhance correspondent banking due diligence.

When a financial institution is requested to provide data and information to a law enforcement agency for matters related to the financing of terrorism, assistance cannot be refused on the grounds of tipping-off. Tipping-off refers to disclosing to a customer or any third party that a suspicious activity report (SAR) has been filed. However, in this specific context, the obligation to provide information to law enforcement takes precedence over any concerns related to tipping-off. Financial institutions must cooperate fully with law enforcement agencies in such cases to combat money laundering and terrorist financing12.

 Spear phishing is a targeted form of phishing scam in which cybercriminals send highly convincing emails to specific individuals within an organization. The emails often contain personal information or details that make them seem legitimate and trustworthy. The goal of spear phishing is to trick the recipients into clicking a malicious link or downloading an infected attachment, or to reveal confidential information or money to the attackers. In this case, the customers of the telecommunications firm received an email that pretended to be from the company, but was actually a fake. The email directed them to a spoofed website that asked for their personal information, which could be used for identity theft or fraud. This is a clear example of a spear phishing attack.

1. Information Technology Staff: These employees handle systems, databases, and software used for transaction monitoring, customer due diligence (CDD), and other AML processes. They need to understand how to configure and maintain AML systems, recognize suspicious patterns, and ensure data security.

2. Customer Facing Staff: Frontline employees, such as tellers, relationship managers, and customer service representatives, interact directly with customers. They play a crucial role in identifying red flags, conducting enhanced due diligence (EDD), and reporting suspicious activities. Training helps them recognize unusual behavior and follow proper procedures.

3. AML/Compliance Staff: These professionals are directly responsible for AML program management, policy development, and regulatory compliance. They need in-depth knowledge of AML laws, regulations, and best practices. Training ensures they stay updated and can effectively implement AML controls.

Effective AML programs promote aculture of compliance, which includes an environment where staff are empowered to raise concerns, challenge decisions, and continuously improve through cross-functional learning.Providing effective challengeis a supervisory expectation and best practice in institutions that value AML governance integrity.

While AML officer authority (option B) supports oversight, it is not as impactful on daily operational effectiveness as fostering a challenging and adaptive compliance culture.

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.

When reviewing business operations of a Money Services Business (MSB), it is critical to identify behaviors that indicate potential money laundering activity. TheCAMS Study Guide – 6th Editionoutlines severalred flagscommonly associated with MSBs.

Option Ais correct:

A customer beinghesitant to provide beneficiary information, such as the name or address, is a red flag. It may indicate attempts to hide the true purpose or recipient of the funds and could suggeststructuring or layering activity.

Option Dis correct:

A customer usingmultiple accounts under different namesto conduct transactions is a strong red flag. This could indicate efforts toobscure ownership, avoid detection, or conductsuspicious structuringbehavior to stay below reporting thresholds.

Option Bis incorrect:

While large cash deposits from cash-intensive businesses may require further review, they are not inherently suspicious unlessinconsistent with the nature of the business or transaction volume.

Option Cis incorrect:

Currency exchanges under the reporting threshold, even from high-risk jurisdictions, are not in themselves red flags unless they show a pattern ofstructuringor are part oflarger suspicious behavior.

Option Eis incorrect:

Frequent small-dollar transfers to a native country may benormal remittance behaviorand only become suspicious if tied to additional indicators such asstructuring or third-party involvement.

Financial institutions are required by law to maintain records and documentation of customer transactions and to provide this information to law enforcement agencies upon request. However, financial institutions should also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that they comply with legal and regulatory requirements and protect customer privacy. Providing protected documents that are privileged under attorney-client privilege or freezing an account immediately may not be the appropriate response and may expose the financial institution to legal or reputational risks.

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.

A risk-based compliance program is one that identifies and prioritizes the highest compliance risks to the FI and implements controls, policies and procedures to mitigate them. A data-based option is the most suitable for a risk-based compliance program, as it allows the FI to collect, analyze and monitor relevant data on its customers, transactions, products, services, geographies and other risk factors. A data-based option also enables the FI to measure the effectiveness of its compliance program and adjust it as needed to respond to changing risks and regulatory expectations12.

1: Risk-Based Approach to Compliance Management2

2: A Risk-Based Approach to Regulatory Compliance1

These options involve transferring funds to another country, which could indicate cross-border movement of illicit funds, and cashing out winnings in checks under 10,000 USD, which could indicate structuring to avoid reporting thresholds. The other options do not seem as suspicious or relevant to money laundering.

free of payment asset transfer is a trading pattern that may be indicative of money laundering in capital markets. Free of payment asset transfer is a method of transferring securities without any corresponding payment, which can be used to avoid detection of the origin or destination of the funds. This can facilitate the layering or integration stages of money laundering, as the launderer can move the assets across different accounts, jurisdictions, or institutions without leaving a clear audit trail. Free of payment asset transfer can also be used to evade taxes, sanctions, or other regulatory requirements.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.8, page 28: “Methods to launder money using broker-dealers, investment advisors, and the capital markets (e.g., securities, futures)”.

ExamTopics, Question 476: “Which trading pattern may be indicative of money laundering in capital markets?”

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and monitors compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) measures. The FATF conducts periodic mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their level of implementation of the FATF Recommendations, which are the international AML/CFT standards. The FATF also identifies jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes that pose a risk to the international financial system, and places them on two public lists: the High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action (also known as the black list) and the Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring (also known as the grey list). The FATF works with these jurisdictions to address their deficiencies and monitors their progress through regular follow-up reports and on-site visits. The FATF may remove a jurisdiction from the list if it has made sufficient and sustainable progress in implementing the required reforms and has effectively addressed the identified strategic deficiencies. Therefore, receiving a favorable mutual evaluation is the most likely reason for the FATF to remove a jurisdictionfrom the list, as it indicates that the jurisdiction has met the FATF standards and has a robust AML/CFT system in place.

Conducting successful annual self-assessments, entering into a mutual legal assistance treaty, or joining the Wolfsberg Group are not sufficient reasons for the FATF to remove a jurisdiction from the list, as they do not necessarily reflect the overall compliance with the FATF Recommendations or the resolution of the strategic deficiencies. Moreover, the Wolfsberg Group is a private association of global banks that develops guidance and best practices for the financial sector on AML/CFT issues, and is not affiliated with the FATF.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, page 11.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 1.4: FATF and the 40 Recommendations.

About the Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories NCCT Initiative, FATF website.

The Egmont Group is a global network of 170 financial intelligence units (FIUs) that facilitate the exchange of information and cooperation among member FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12. FIUs are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligence to relevant authorities3. The Egmont Group supports the implementation of international standardsand best practices for FIUs, provides training and technical assistance, and promotes the development of secure and effective communication channels12.

Egmont Group website

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6thedition), Chapter 5: The Role of the Financial Intelligence Unit in Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, page 1532

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) is a global network of FIUs that facilitates and promotes the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes1. The Egmont Group has developed operational guidance for international cooperation and information exchange among FIUs, which includes channels, procedures, and forms for making and receiving requests2. Filing a request under Egmont guidelines is therefore a common and effective way for a regulatory body to obtain international assistance in a money laundering inquiry, as it ensures that the request is made through the appropriate and secure channel, and that it meets the standards and expectations of the requested FIU.

1: Home - Egmont Group

2: EGMONT GROUP OF FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNITS OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR …

FSRBs are regional bodies that work with FATF to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards. FSRBs are made up of member countries that have agreed to work together to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism [1]. The tools used by FSRBs to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards include training measures, mutual evaluations of its members, technical assistance, and the sharing of information. FSRBs may also adopt recommendations and best practices based on the FATF’s 40 Recommendations.

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

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

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.

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.

MSBs arevulnerable to financial crimedue to theircash-intensive natureandremittance services.

Option D (Correct):Hesitation to provide beneficiary detailssuggestsanonymity concerns, a common money laundering tactic.

Option E (Correct):Usingmultiple accounts under different namesis aknown structuring techniquetoevade detection.

Option A (Incorrect):Exchanging foreign currency is normal, though higher-risk transactions require monitoring.

Option B (Incorrect):Cash deposits are expectedin MSBs but needadditional risk factorsto be considered suspicious.

Option C (Incorrect):Frequent small transfersmay be normal forremittance businesses.

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.

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.

Money launderers preferlarge-denomination billsbecause theyfacilitate bulk cash smuggling and placement.

Option A (Correct):Increased demand for large-denomination banknotesis a knownmoney laundering red flag.

Option B (Incorrect):Increased digital service adoption isnormal banking behavior.

Option C (Incorrect):Faster settlement times may reflecttechnology upgrades, not financial crime.

Option D (Incorrect):Maintaining a log of monetary instruments isa compliance best practice, not a red flag.

TheFATF Immediate Outcomes (IOs)measure the effectiveness of AML/CFT frameworks in jurisdictions.

Option A (Correct):International cooperationis key to combating financial crime, as outlined inImmediate Outcome 2.

Option B (Correct):Effective regulation of financial institutionsis part ofImmediate Outcome 3, which ensures compliance with AML laws.

Option E (Correct):Investigation and prosecution of money laundering offensesalign withImmediate Outcome 7.

Option C (Incorrect):FATF itself does not conduct investigations; FIUs share intelligence with domestic and international agencies.

Option D (Incorrect):While financial criminals face legal consequences, there is no global mandate to restrict their access to banking.

According to the FATF Recommendations (2012), page 111, the FATF calls on its members and urges all jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence and, in the most serious cases, countermeasures to protect the international financial system from the money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing risks emanating from countries with significant strategic AML/CFT deficiencies. Countermeasures are proportionate and effective actions that can be applied by countries individually or collectively to protect their financial systems from these risks. Examples of countermeasures include restricting or prohibiting financial transactions with the high-risk country, requiring financial institutions to review and terminate correspondent relationships with the high-risk country, or applying enhanced reporting mechanisms or systematic reporting of financial transactions with the high-risk country.

Casinos and gambling institutionsare highly vulnerable to money launderingbecause they allow theconversion of cash into chips, checks, or electronic credits, which can later be redeemed as “clean” funds.

Option A (Correct):A privately held company funding multiple patrons' betting accounts is highly suspiciousand may indicate:

Structuring/smurfing, where multiple individuals are used to move illicit funds.

Third-party money laundering, where the real source of funds is obscured.

Trade-based money laundering, if linked to non-gaming businesses.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Placing multiple bets on the same eventis not inherently suspiciousunless linked tofraudulent betting patterns.

Option C (Incorrect):Large chip purchases in cashmay requirereporting, but they do not necessarily indicatemoney laundering.

Option D (Incorrect):Transferring winnings to another operator may beunusual, butnot automatically suspiciousunless the amount is large and unjustified.

Common Money Laundering Techniques in Casinos:

Chip Walking– Buying chips with illicit funds and cashing them out later as "clean" funds.

Casino Account Transfers– Using multiple accounts or third-party accounts to move funds.

High-Value Gambling with No Loss Intent– Betting on both sides of an event to ensure clean withdrawal of funds.

Best Practices for Casino AML Compliance:

Monitor suspicious large transactions and third-party funding activities.

Perform enhanced due diligence (EDD) on high-risk patrons.

File Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for unusual gambling activity.

Banks mustcomply with legal subpoenaswhile ensuring AML compliance.

Option B (Correct):The bank shouldreview client transactionsandrespond fullyto law enforcement.

Option A (Incorrect):Filing a SAR simply because of a subpoenaisnot requiredunless suspicious activity is identified.

Option C (Incorrect):Tipping offthe client about the subpoena isillegalunder AML laws.

Option D (Incorrect):Risk scores should be reviewedbut not automatically adjustedsolely based on a subpoena.

The Belgian bank should freeze the assets of the customer and report to OFAC, as this is the required action for any US person or entity, or any person or entity within the US, that holds or controls property or interests in property of a person or entity on the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). The SDN List is a list of individuals and entities that are subject to US sanctions and whose assets are blocked by OFAC. The Belgian bank, by maintaining a branch in New York, is subject to the jurisdiction and authority of OFAC, and must comply with its regulations and directives. Allowing transactions, closing the account, or continuing business as usual would violate the sanctions and expose the bank to civil and criminal penalties.

An effective AML transaction monitoring system must align withthe bank’s operational complexity, risk exposure, and analytical capabilities.

Option A (Correct):The system must be tailored to the bank’s specific risk profile to ensure effectiveness.

Option D (Correct):A strong AML system should support trend analysis to identify long-term suspicious behaviors.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):While vendor controls are important, they do not determine system suitability.

Option C (Incorrect):User access settings should be based on the bank’s internal risk framework, not industry standards alone.

Best Practices for Implementing an AML Monitoring System:

Ensure scalability to adapt to evolving financial crime risks.

Leverage AI and machine learning to enhance detection accuracy.

Integrate real-time screening and transaction trend analysis.

AML audit findings must beanalyzed and addressed through remedial actions based on root cause analysis.

Option D (Correct):Root cause analysis helps develop effective corrective measures to prevent recurring AML deficiencies.

Option A (Incorrect):Retesting controls may be useful, but addressing deficiencies is more critical.

Option B (Incorrect):While the board oversees compliance, the responsibility for implementing fixes lies with AML teams.

Option C (Incorrect):Audit teams provide findings but do not execute corrective actions.

Best Practices for Addressing AML Audit Findings:

Identify the root cause of AML control failures.

Develop risk-based remediation plans.

Implement and monitor corrective actions.

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.

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.

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.

OFAC sanctions apply extraterritoriallyto ensureU.S. financial and economic interests are protected.

Option A (Correct):U.S. citizensmust comply with OFAC sanctionsregardless of where they are located.

Option D (Correct):U.S.-incorporated entities and their foreign branchesare required to followOFAC restrictions.

Option E (Correct):Permanent U.S. resident aliensare subject toOFAC complianceeven outside the U.S.

Option B (Incorrect):Non-U.S. financial institutionsare notdirectly subject to OFACunless they have aU.S. presenceordeal in USD transactions.

Option C (Incorrect):Selling U.S.-origin goods does not automatically subject merchants to OFAC laws, unless they are in asanctioned jurisdiction.

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.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the use of large amounts of cash is a common method for money launderers to move illicit funds [1]. Purchasing luxury items with cash can indicate an attempt to convert illegal funds into tangible assets that can be easily resoldor moved across borders. As a result, businesses that deal with luxury items are required to implement enhanced due diligence measures, including monitoring transactions involving large amounts of cash [1].

TheEgmont Groupis aninternational network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)thatenhances cooperation and information sharing to combat financial crime.

Option A (Correct):The Egmont Groupimproves global cooperationby enabling FIUsto exchange financial intelligence securely.

Option C (Correct):Thegroup facilitates secure communication channelsforsharing money laundering and terrorist financing intelligence.

Option E (Correct):TheEgmont Group fosters trust between FIUs, allowing them to work collaborativelyon cross-border investigations.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not negotiate case-by-case memoranda of understanding (MoUs)for individual cases.

Option D (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not draft AML legislation; itprovides guidance but does not have regulatory authority.

Key Functions of the Egmont Group:

Facilitating cross-border cooperation among FIUs.

Providing a secure network (Egmont Secure Web) for intelligence sharing.

Developing best practices for AML/CFT investigations.

Ongoing Due Diligence: FATF emphasizes the importance of continuous monitoring of business relationships and transactions. This involves regularly assessing the risk associated with a customer and ensuring that the information remains up-to-date. It includes monitoring transactions for any suspicious activity or red flags.

Beneficial Owners: Identifying beneficial owners is crucial, but it must be done with verification of their true identity. This is part of the initial due diligence process.

Risk Assessment: Conducting risk assessments is essential, but it is not specific to customer due diligence. Risk assessment applies broadly to anti-money laundering (AML) programs.

Products and Services Suitability: While understanding the suitability of products and services is relevant, it is not a direct measure within customer due diligence.

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.

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.

Accounts may beclosedif theypose high money laundering or sanction risks.

Option A (Correct):MultipleSAR filingsindicatehigh risk, possibly requiringaccount closureif AML concerns persist.

Option B (Incorrect):Tuition paymentsare alegitimate purposefor fund transfers.

Option C (Incorrect):Indirect dealings withSDNs require compliance review, but notimmediate account closure.

Option D (Incorrect):Civil subpoenasalone do not justifyaccount termination.

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.

AMutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)is aformal agreement between two or more countriesthat facilitatescooperation in legal and law enforcement matters, includingAML investigations.

Option D (Correct):MLATs allow governments to share financial intelligence, request legal assistance, and conduct joint investigations.

Option A (Incorrect):A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is typically a non-binding contract used for general business or governmental cooperation.

Option B (Incorrect):A Declaration of Understanding is an informal agreement and does not provide a legal framework for law enforcement cooperation.

Option C (Incorrect):A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is often used for informal cooperation but lacks the legal enforceability of an MLAT.

Option E (Incorrect):A Request for Urgent Information is not a recognized international legal instrument.

Best Practices for Cross-Border AML Cooperation:

Use MLATs to request access to financial records in foreign jurisdictions.

Collaborate with Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) via the Egmont Group.

Leverage FATF’s International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) for guidance.

Money laundering negatively affects economic stability by discouraging investment, distorting markets, and eroding public trust.

Option A (Correct):A financial system tainted by money laundering loses credibility, leading to reduced investor and consumer confidence.

Option D (Correct):Foreign investors avoid jurisdictions with weak AML controls due to the risk of sanctions and reputational damage.

Option B (Incorrect):While tax evasion is linked to money laundering, it does not directly affect the decision to implement tax incentives.

Option C (Incorrect):Unemployment may result from economic instability, but money laundering does not directly cause job losses.

Option E (Incorrect):Money laundering often increases volatility in financial markets, not reduces it.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the essential elements of an effective AML program is the establishment of a written AML policy that sets out the bank’s commitment to comply with the applicable AML laws and regulations, as well asthe roles and responsibilities of the board of directors, senior management, and staff in implementing the AML program. The AML policy should also include the bank’s risk assessment, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record keeping, reporting, training, and audit procedures. The AML policy should be approved by the board of directors and communicated to all staff from the top down. The other options are not incorrect, but they are not the primary responsibility of the board of directors in demonstrating commitment to AML compliance.

 Structuring is a technique used in the placement stage of money laundering, in which the launderer deposits or withdraws cash in amounts below the reporting threshold to avoid detection or suspicion. Structuring is also known as smurfing, because it involves using multiple individuals or locations to carry out the transactions. Structuring is illegal in many jurisdictions and is a red flag for money laundering12.

Option A is not an example of structuring, but of using an alternative remittance system, which is a method of transferring money outside the formal financial sector. Hawala is a type of alternative remittance system that relies on a network of brokers who settle the transactions through trust and honor. Hawala can be used for legitimate purposes, but also poses a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing13.

Option B is not an example of structuring, but of a large cash transaction, which is a common indicator of money laundering. Large cash transactions may involve the proceeds of crime or the attempt to evade taxes or currency controls. Financial institutions are required to report large cash transactions above a certain threshold to the relevant authorities14.

Option D is not an example of structuring, but of a wire transfer, which is a method of moving funds electronically from one account to another. Wire transfers can be used for legitimate purposes, but also pose a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing, especially if they involve high-risk jurisdictions, shell companies, or complex chains of transactions1 .

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.

Lawyers who lack experience in providing specific services requested by clients or receive unusually high fees can raise red flags for money laundering. Inadequate documentation of case notes may also be suspicious, but the absence of experience and excessive fees are more significant indicators. These behaviors warrant further scrutiny to assess potential money laundering risks12.

 A beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity or arrangement, such as a company, a trust, or a foundation. Identifying the beneficial owner is essential for preventing and detecting money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and other illicit activities that may involve the misuse of corporate vehicles. However, some individuals or entities may attempt to conceal the true beneficial ownership of a company by using various techniques, such as complex ownership structures, shell companies, bearer shares, or nominees. A nominee is a person or an entity that acts on behalf of another person or entity, usually for a fee or a commission, without disclosing the identity of the real owner or controller. Nominees can be used to protect or conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and controller of a company or asset. A nominee can help overcome jurisdictional controls on company ownership and circumvent directorship bans imposed by courts and government authorities. While the appointment of nominees is lawful in most countries, the use of nominees for money laundering purposes is illegal and a red flag for suspicious activity. Therefore, the person filling out an application on the company’s behalf indicating that a beneficial owner is a nominee for another person not named in the company’s documentation is an indicator that there is an attempt to conceal the company’s true beneficial ownership12.

The other options are not necessarily indicators of concealment of beneficial ownership, as they may have legitimate explanations or reasons. The company having a subsidiary in another jurisdiction with a local investor as a beneficial owner may be a normal business practice or a strategic decision, as long as the ownership information is transparent and accurate. Recent changes to the company’s ownership structure may reflect the company’s growth, development, or adaptation to market conditions, as long as they are documented and reported to the relevant authorities. Beneficial ownership information from the time that the company was formed several years ago not matching the current information may be due to natural changes in the company’s shareholders, directors, or managers, as long as they are updated and verified periodically.

Financial institutions must screen customers against adverse information and determine whether they pose a significant financial crime risk.

Option B (Correct):A direct link to an organized crime group is a severe red flag. Organized crime networks engage in money laundering, corruption, and other illicit activities. UnderFATF Recommendations 10 and 12, financial institutions must implement enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customers and consider account closure if they pose undue risk.

Option A (Incorrect):Bankruptcy does not necessarily indicate financial crime risk, though it may raise financial stability concerns.

Option C (Incorrect):While PEPs pose a higher risk for corruption, financial institutions typically apply EDD rather than immediately terminating the relationship.

Option D (Incorrect):Violating a construction permit is a regulatory issue, not directly linked to financial crime.

Vendors and third-party relationships pose financial crime risks, particularly when theyoperate in sanctioned jurisdictions. Organizations must ensure thatthey are not directly or indirectly violating economic sanctionswhen engaging with vendors.

Option D (Correct):If a vendor provides services tosanctioned entities or individuals, an organizationrisks violating OFAC, EU, or UN sanctions laws, potentially leading tofines, legal action, or reputational damage. Engaging in business in asanctioned regionrequires strictdue diligence and licensing.

Option A (Incorrect):Thepersonal backgroundof an employee isnot relevantunless theycurrently have direct ties to a sanctioned jurisdiction or person.

Option B (Incorrect):Alack of majority ownershipdoes not automatically indicateAML risk; however, organizations should still assessownership structures for opacity.

Option C (Incorrect):Privately held companiescan betransparentif theydisclose ownership and operate within compliance standards.

Why This Matters:

Failing toscreen vendors for sanctions riskscan result insevere penalties, reputational harm, and regulatory scrutiny.OFAC (U.S.), EU, and UN sanctions prohibit business transactions with specific countries, entities, and individuals. Organizations mustconduct thorough due diligencetoidentify and mitigate sanctions risks.

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 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.

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

The company regularly understating the value of goods exported is an indicator of possible money laundering because it may suggest that the company is involved in trade-based money laundering (TBML), which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions in an attempt to legitimise their illicit origins or finance their activities. One of the common TBML techniques is over-invoicing or under-invoicing, which involves manipulating the price, quantity or quality of goods or services in order to transfer value between the importer and exporter. By understating the value of goods exported, the company may be transferring funds to a foreign counterpart who is either a co-conspirator or a third-party money launderer, who will then pay the company the difference in cash or through other means. This way, the company can avoid currency reporting requirements, evade taxes, conceal the source and destination of funds, and integrate the illicit proceeds into the formal economy.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2:Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 381

Trade-Based Money Laundering: Trends and Developments, FATF-Egmont Group, December 2020, page 282

Trade-Based Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Global Investigations Review, September 20233

"The first European Union Directive, “Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering (Directive 91/308/EEC),” was adopted by the Council of the European Communities in June 1991. Like all directives adopted by the Council, it required member states to achieve (by amending national law, if necessary) the specified results. This First Directive required the members to enact legislation to prevent their domestic financial systems from being used for money laundering"

 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

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

Anti-Money Laundering Preparedness Survey Report 2020 - Deloitte US, page 4.

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 39.

"Transaction Monitoring Systems and Ongoing Monitoring: Since the transactional monitoring system is key to mitigating ML risk within the bank, the Committee recognizes that AML risks require more than just appropriate policies and procedures; banks must have adequate and appropriate monitoring systems. For most banks, this will involve an IT monitoring system. If the bank does not believe it needs an IT monitoring system, it should document the rationale for why it does not need one.

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

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

The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. The group started as a meeting of banks in 1999 to address anti-money laundering (AML) in private banking, which carries an increased degree of risk from a money laundering perspective. In the course of discussions, they articulated principles that reflected uniformly high standards for this client segment. These principles became the first guidance published by the group under the name Wolfsberg Principles.

The Wolfsberg Group - Institute on Governance

Wolfsberg Group - Wikipedia

The Group first came together in 2000 at the Wolfsberg castle in Switzerland, accompanied by representatives of Transparency International, to draft anti-money laundering guidelines for private banking

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

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

Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “What Constitutes Supporting Documentation”, paragraph 2: “Supporting documentation may include, for example, transaction records, new account information, tape recordings, e-mail messages, and correspondence.”

Documentation Requirements: Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “SARs Documentation Requirements”, paragraph 2: “Keep all documents with evidence of the background, the purpose of the transactions, the trigger, the investigation carried out, and all findings and conclusions.”

BSA/AML Manual, section “Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program - BSA Compliance Officer”, paragraph 3: “The BSA compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is implemented effectively, including timely updates in response to changes in regulations or business activities, and for managing all aspects of the BSA/AML compliance program. The BSA compliance officer is also responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is communicated to all personnel and that adequate training is provided to appropriate personnel.”

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.

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

Issue country-specific Mutual Evaluation reports. This is the process by which FSRBs assess the compliance and effectiveness of their members’ AML/CFT systems, based on the FATF standards and methodology3. Mutual Evaluation reports provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each jurisdiction, as well as recommendations for improvement4.

Identify jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT regimes. This is the process by which FSRBs, in coordination with the FATF, monitor and publicly list the countries that pose a risk to the international financial system due to their strategic deficiencies in AML/CFT. This process aims to encourage and assist these jurisdictions to address their gaps and enhance their cooperation with the global network.

The other three options are incorrect because:

Address AML/CFT technical assistance of individual members is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a core function of FSRBs. FSRBs may facilitate or coordinate technical assistance, but they are not the primary providers or funders of such assistance.

Establish AML/CFT standards and typologies is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a role of FSRBs. FSRBs are expected to adopt and implement the FATF standards, not to create their own. Typologies are the methods and trends of money laundering and terrorist financing, which are identified and analyzed by the FATF and FSRBs through research and workshops.

Protect the reputation and standing of FATF is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a responsibility of FSRBs. FSRBs are autonomous and independent organizations that have their own governance and accountability mechanisms. FSRBs are expected to cooperate and coordinate with the FATF, but not to act as its agents or representatives.

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

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

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

Based on the USA PATRIOT Act, one action that the US might take to demonstrate extraterritorial reach is to send requests for information to a non-US based financial institution (FI). The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the authority of the US government to issue subpoenas and other legal orders to foreign banks that maintain a correspondent account in the US, requiring them to produce records relating to such account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the US12. This provision was intended to enhance the ability of the US to investigate and prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing activities that involve foreign FIs3.

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

2: Britannica, USA PATRIOT Act, History & Society

3: Princeton Legal Journal, FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act: Reforms and Legal Implications

The scenario described in the question presents several indicators of potential money laundering through real estate, which the broker should be aware of and report accordingly. The most relevant red flags are:

Value: The student wants to buy a home that is overvalued, meaning that the asking price is higher than the market value or the appraisal value of the property. This could indicate that the student is trying to launder a large amount of illicit funds in one transaction, or that the seller is colluding with the student to inflate the price and receive a kickback. Overvaluing or undervaluing properties is a common technique used by money launderers to manipulate the price of real estate and conceal the source or destination of their funds12.

Inconsistency: The student’s behavior and profile are inconsistent with the typical characteristics of a legitimate home buyer. The student cancels the viewing of the home at the last minute due to illness, which could suggest a lack of interest or a pretext to avoid scrutiny. The student also wants to buy an expensive home despite being a student, which could indicate a discrepancy between the student’s income and the source of funds. Moreover, the student disregards the broker’s objections to the asking price, which could imply that the student is not concerned about the value or quality of the property, but rather the amount of money that can be laundered through it34.

Transaction speed: The student wants to quickly buy the home, which could indicate a sense of urgency or pressure to move the illicit funds before they are detected or seized by the authorities. Money launderers often use fast transactions to avoid raising suspicion or leaving a paper trail. Transaction speed is especially relevant when combined with other red flags, such as cash payments, anonymous buyers, or overvalued properties5 .

When an FI is being investigated for possible money laundering, it is important that it cooperates with the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in a professional and transparent manner. This means that the FI should take the following steps:

Maintain centralized control over all requests and responses to ensure completeness and timely responses. This will help the FI to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of information, as well as to track the status and progress of the requests and responses. It will also facilitate the communication and coordination between the FI and the LEAs, and demonstrate the FI’s willingness to cooperate12.

Review subpoenas and other information requests by senior management and an investigations group or counsel. This will help the FI to assess the scope, relevance, and legality of the requests, as well as to identify any potential risks, conflicts, or sensitivities. It will also enable the FI to prepare and provide the requested information in an accurate and timely manner, and to seek clarification or negotiation if necessary13.

The other options are not advisable, as they may indicate a lack of cooperation, obstruct the investigation, or damage the FI’s reputation. For example:

Making employees, including corporate officers, unavailable for interviews and refusing documents upon receipt of a subpoena may be considered as non-compliance, evasion, or contempt of court, and may result in legal sanctions or penalties4.

Addressing the document destruction policy to ensure the relevant documents are destroyed may be seen as tampering with evidence, destroying records, or concealing information, and may constitute a criminal offence or a breach of regulatory obligations5.

Not answering inquiries from the media directly, but rather replying, “No comment” may create a negative impression, fuel speculation, or invite criticism, and may harm the FI’s image, credibility, or trustworthiness.

Cooperation between FIUs, Law Enforcement Authorities, and Prosecutors

AML and Financial crimes investigation

Mechanisms for interaction of law enforcement agencies in the field of counteracting and combating money laundering

Recommendation 30: Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities

Money laundering and illicit finance

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

CAMS Study Guide, page 1911

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

According to the Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3rd AMLD), a politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, government ministers, judges, senior military officers, or members of parliament1. The 3rd AMLD requires institutions and persons covered by the Directive to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures when dealing with PEPs residing in another Member State or in a third country, in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing risks1. The 3rd AMLD also specifies that a person who is no longerentrusted with a prominent public function shall not be considered a PEP after a period of at least one year has elapsed since that person left office, unless the institution or person covered by the Directive has knowledge or reason to believe that the person is still exposed to specific risks2. However, the Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, which lays down implementing measures for the 3rd AMLD, extends this period to at least two years, and allows Member States to extend it further, depending on the level of risk and the type of prominent public function involved3.

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing

2: Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC

3: Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis

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

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement inquiry, it should cooperate as much as possible and respond to all formal requests for information, unless there is a valid objection that can and should be made1. The institution should also file a suspicious transaction report (STR) if the inquiry or the customer’s activity triggers any red flags or indicators of money laundering or other financial crimes2. Additionally, the institution should monitor the account for suspicious activity and review the money laundering risk posed by the account, as these are part of the ongoing due diligence and risk assessment processes3. Closing the account immediately is not a recommended action, as it may alert the customer or interfere with the investigation4.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 122

3: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 123

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 124

According to the FATF 40 recommendations, the focus of AML efforts has been expanded beyond financial institutions to include other businesses and professions that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. These include:

Casinos, when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold. Casinos are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers, keeprecords of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The designated threshold is USD/EUR 3,000 or more1.

Real estate agents, when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties. Real estate agents are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Real estate transactions can involve large amounts of money and complex legal arrangements that can be used to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds2.

Trust and company service providers, when they prepare for or carry out transactions for a client concerning the creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements. Trust and company service providers are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Trust and company service providers can facilitate the misuse of legal persons or arrangements, such as shell companies or trusts, to hide the true ownership and control of assets or funds3.

The other option, dealers in art, when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold, is not covered by the FATF 40 recommendations. However, dealers in precious metals and stones are covered when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold of USD/EUR 15,000 or more. Dealers in art may be subject to national or regional regulations that impose AML obligations on them, depending on the jurisdiction.

FATF Recommendation 22: Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions: Customer Due Diligence

FATF Recommendation 23: Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions: Other Measures

FATF Recommendation 24: Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons

[FATF Recommendation 25: Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Arrangements]

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

Section 319(b), which allows for the US Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a subpoena or other legal order to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the US, requiring the production of records relating to such account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the US12. This section also allows foreign banksto voluntarily designate a registered agent in the US to accept service of such subpoenas or orders12.

Section 313, which prohibits US financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks, which are banks thathave no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group34. This section also requires US financial institutions to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts with foreign banks are not being used to provide banking services indirectly to foreign shell banks34.

Section 311, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to designate foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, classes of transactions, or types of accounts as being of “primary money laundering concern” and to impose special measures to address such concerns . These special measures may include requiring US financial institutions to obtain and retain information on the beneficial owners of foreign accounts, prohibiting or imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions, or requiring US financial institutions to identify the customers of their foreign correspondent account holders . The Secretary of the Treasury may also order a US financial institution to terminate a correspondent account within 10 days if the foreign bank fails to comply with a subpoena or other request for information under Section 319(b) .

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121

3: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 313

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 120

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 311

ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 119

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)

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

Technical factsheet The role of the money laundering reporting officer

Consequences of not complying | AUSTRAC

Money Laundering Reporting Officer: The Role Of MLRO

FinCEN Penalizes U.S. Bank Official for Corporate Anti-Money Laundering Failures

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate information on suspicious or unusual financial activity, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, to relevant authorities. One of their main functions is to disseminate the results of their analysis to law enforcement agencies in a timely manner, so that they can initiate investigations or prosecutions. This is also one of the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body that sets the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) policies and recommendations. The other options are not the primary responsibilities of FIUs, although they may perform them as part of their mandate or in cooperation with other agencies.

What are Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)? | Dow Jones

Financial Intelligence Units: An Overview - IMF

Financial Intelligence Units - Egmont Group

FATF Recommendation 29 - Financial Intelligence Units (page 17)

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

According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a network of over 160 FIUs that promotes international cooperation and information exchange, FIUs should share information with foreign FIUs spontaneously, without prior request, when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information is relevant for the receiving FIU1. This principle is also reflected in the FATF Recommendation 40, which states that FIUs should exchange information with other FIUs, especially when this information concerns money laundering, predicate offences, or terrorist financing2. Spontaneous information sharing can enhance the effectiveness of FIUs, as it can help to identify new leads, trends, patterns, or typologies, as well as to prevent or disrupt criminal activities1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of FIU information sharing. For example:

In accordance with Wolfsberg guidelines, submit the information to the other FIU in written form. The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that issues guidance and standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. However, the Wolfsberg guidelines are not binding for FIUs, and they do not specify the format or channel of informationexchange between FIUs3. Moreover, submitting information in written form may not be the most efficient or secure way of communication, as it may cause delays, errors, or breaches of confidentiality.

Take no action until contacted by the other FIU. This option contradicts the principle of spontaneous information sharing, as it implies that the FIU with the relevant information will wait for a formal request from the other FIU, instead of proactively sharing the information. This may result in missed opportunities, inefficiencies, or failures in detecting or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

Request approval from the Egmont Group prior to sharing the information with the other FIU. This option is unnecessary and impractical, as the Egmont Group does not have the authority or the capacity to approve or deny individual information requests or exchanges between FIUs. The Egmont Group provides a platform and a framework for FIU cooperation, but it does not interfere with the operational autonomy or the bilateral relations of its members4.

FATF Recommendation 40: Other Forms of International Co-operation

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

Wolfsberg Group

Egmont Group

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Principles for Correspondent Banking, one of the key aspects of establishing and maintaining a correspondent relationship is to conduct a risk-based due diligence on the respondent bank, which includes obtaining approval from at least one person other than the person sponsoring the relationship12. This is to ensure that the correspondent bank has a clear understanding of the nature, purpose, and expected activity of the relationship, as well as the respondent bank’s ownership, governance, AML policies, and customer base12.

Another aspect of the Wolfsberg AML Principles is to recognize and assess the factors that may increase the risk inherent in a correspondent relationship, such as the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs), the presence of downstream (nested) correspondents, the geographic location of the respondent bank and its customers, and thetypes of products and services offered by the respondent bank12. These factors may require enhanced due diligence, monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities by thecorrespondent bank, as well as the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures12.

1: Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 20221

2: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking2

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.4: Training1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.4: Training2

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the situation that is the highest risk for money laundering and terrorist financing activity is A. A customer purchases casino chips, using small denomination bank notes, but does not engage in game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check. This is because this situation may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:

Using small denomination bank notes, which may be an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the casino or the authorities, as large amounts of cash are usually associated with criminal activity1.

Not engaging in game play, which may indicate a lack of interest in gambling and a sole purpose of exchanging cash for a casino check, which is a more legitimate and less traceable form of payment2.

Redeeming the chips for a casino check, which may be a way of laundering the cash through the casino, as the check can be deposited into a bank account or cashed at another location, without revealing the source of the funds3.

The other three options are less risky because:

B. A customer purchases casino chips and engages in significant game play before requesting a casino check for the remainder is less risky, as it may indicate a genuine interest in gambling and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use gambling as a cover for their illicit activities, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person4.

C. A customer purchases casino chips using a credit card and engages in minimal game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a low level of funds involved and a traceable source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit cards to obtain cash advances from the casino, or may use the casino check as a way of repaying their credit card debt or transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

D. A customer purchases casino chips using credit from an account at an affiliated casino and engages in significant game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a regular and loyal customer of the casino and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit from an affiliated casino to avoid carrying cash or using credit cards, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110

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?

International wire transfers are considered to be of highest money laundering risk because they can facilitate the rapid and anonymous movement of funds across borders and jurisdictions, making it difficult for law enforcement and regulators to trace the origin and destination of the funds, and to identify the beneficial owners and controllers of the accounts involved. International wire transfers can also be used to layer and integrate illicit proceeds into the legitimate financial system, by disguising the source, ownership, and purpose of the funds. International wire transfers can involve multiple intermediaries, complex payment chains, and inconsistent or incomplete information, whichcan increase the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, international wire transfers are subject to enhanced due diligence, record-keeping, and reporting requirements under various anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) regulations and standards, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations1, the European Union (EU) Funds Transfer Regulation2, and the United States (US) Bank Secrecy Act3.

1: FATF (2012), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, Recommendation 16 and Interpretive Note to Recommendation 16. 2: Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 1) 4 3: 31 U.S.C. §§ 5311-5330 and 31 C.F.R. Chapter X

V

You cannot make international money transfers unless the money is credited to the account. So first priority saving account, subsequent risk international wire transfer

"A savings account, as well as a checking account, can be one of the riskiest financial instruments for money laundering operations given the ease with which it can be opened and operated".

Economic sanctions are penalties imposed by one or more countries against another country, group, or individual for violatinginternational norms or threatening national interests1. The ultimate goal of economic sanctions is to protect national security by changing the behavior or policies of the target, or by weakening its capabilities or resources2. Sanctions can be used to advance various foreignpolicy objectives, such as counterterrorism, nonproliferation, democracy promotion, human rights protection, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity1. Sanctions can take different forms, such as travel bans, asset freezes, trade embargoes, arms restrictions, and aid reductions1. Sanctions can be applied unilaterally by one country, or multilaterally by a coalition of countries or an international organization, such as the United Nations or the European Union1.

1: What Are Economic Sanctions? | Council on Foreign Relatio

2: How Economic Sanctions Work - Investopedia

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

https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/wolfsbergstandards/10.%20Wolfsberg-Private-Banking-Prinicples-May-2012.pdf

2.4 Senior Management Approval

The bank's internal policies should indicate whether, for any one or more among these categories, Senior

Management must approve entering into new relationships.

Relationships with Politically Exposed Persons may only be entered into with the approval of Senior Management.

The following were the key features of the Second Directive:

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

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

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

A compliance officer should 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

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), a sound KYC program should contain four essential elements: (i) customer acceptance policy; (ii) customer identification; (iii) on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts; and (iv) risk management1. These elements correspond to the options B in the question, as customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers, risk assessment involves determining the level of risk posed by the customers and their activities, customer screening involves checking the customers against relevant sanctions and watch lists, and monitoring involves reviewing the customers’ transactions and behavior for any anomalies or red flags.

Consolidated KYC Risk Management - Bank for International Settlements

 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.

According to the third European Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing1, Member States may allow the identity verification of the beneficiary under the policy to be carried out at or before the time of payout or before the beneficiary intends to exercise rights vested under the policy, provided that the following conditions are met:

the beneficiary is identified as a natural or legal person or a legal arrangement, and the verification of the identity is not possible earlier, due to the nature of the product or the transaction;

there is a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, taking into account the type of policy, the product features, the premium amount, and the distribution channel;

the Member States adopt appropriate risk-sensitive measures to prevent the misuse of the policy during the life of the relationship.

This provision is intended to accommodate the specificities of the life insurance sector, where the beneficiary may not be known at the time of the conclusion of the contract, or may change during the life of the policy. However, the Directive also requires that the identity verification of the beneficiary is carried out as soon as possible after the establishment of the business relationship, and that the insurance undertaking applies enhanced customer due diligence measures when the beneficiary is a politically exposed person.

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15) 2

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 173, “If an independent investigation provides grounds to interview the employee, the employee can be interviewed and, if necessary, terminated, but not advised that he or she is under investigation by law enforcement.” This is because informing the employee of the law enforcement investigation could compromise the integrity of the case and potentially expose the institution to legal liability. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

CAMS Study Guide, page 1731

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 2872

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

Basic Information on OFAC and Sanctions

OFAC Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions

Office of Foreign Assets Control — Overview

 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