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

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

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

References:

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

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

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

References:

1: Investopedia, What Is a Free Look Period and How Does It Work?

2: FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements for Insurance Companies

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

References:

Investopedia: Bearer Share

SuperMoney: Bearer Shares: Definition, Examples, and Implications

ACAMS: Bearer Shares

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.

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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.

References:

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

According to the Basel guidelines on customer due diligence for banks, a trust is a legal arrangement whereby a person (the settlor or grantor) transfers the legal ownership of specific assets to another person or entity (the trustee) to hold for the benefit of a third person or persons (the beneficiaries)1. The Basel guidelines recommend that banks should identify and verify the identity of the following parties to determine the true nature of the trust relationship:

The trustee, who is the person or entity that has the legal authority and duty to manage the trust assets and distribute them to the beneficiaries according to the trust deed2. The trustee may also be the settlor, the beneficiary, or both, depending on the type and structure of the trust3.

The beneficiaries, who are the persons or entities that have a beneficial interest in the trust assets or income, either presently or in the future4. The beneficiaries may be named individuals, classes of persons, or charitable causes.

The settlor or grantor, who is the person or entity that creates the trust and transfers the legal ownership of the assets to the trustee. The settlor or grantor may also retain some rights or powers over the trust, such as the ability to appoint or remove trustees, beneficiaries, or protectors.

The other three options are incorrect because:

Respondents are not trust parties, but rather financial institutions that maintain correspondent banking relationships with other financial institutions. Respondents are not relevant for the identification of the trust relationship, but rather for the due diligence of the correspondent banking relationship.

Payees are not trust parties, but rather persons or entities that receive payments from the trust or other sources. Payees are not relevant for the identification of the trust relationship, but rather for the monitoring of the transactions and activities of the trust.

Trust administrators are not trust parties, but rather persons or entities that provide administrative services to the trust, such as accounting, record-keeping, or tax compliance. Trust administrators are not relevant for the identification of the trust relationship, but rather for the assessment of the risk and complexity of the trust.

References:

1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, 4, p. 17 2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, 4, p. 17 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 111 4: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, 4, p. 17 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 111 : Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, 4, p. 17 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 111 : Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, 4, p. 10 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 112 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 112

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

References:

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

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