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

According to the FFIEC BSA/AML Manual1, a U.S. bank should have policies, procedures, and processes to monitor and report suspicious activity associated with U.S. dollar drafts, which are bank drafts or checks denominated in U.S. dollars and made available at foreign financial institutions. These drafts are drawn on a U.S. correspondent account by a foreign financial institution and can be used to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing. The manual states that "[t]he potential for facilitating money laundering or terrorist financing, OFAC violations, and other serious crimes increases when a U.S. bank is unable to identify and adequately understand the transactions of the ultimate users (all or most of whom are outside of the United States) of its account with a foreign correspondent."2 Therefore, the compliance officer should notify Foreign Bank A of the discovery and seek documentation supporting Foreign Bank A was collusive and a willing partner with Foreign Bank B in the activity, as this would indicate a breach of the correspondent banking agreement and a possible violation of U.S. laws and regulations. The compliance officer should also document the findings and actions taken, and escalate the matter to senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.

The other options are not the best steps for the compliance officer to take. Option A is not relevant, as the issue is not related to tax evasion, but to money laundering or terrorist financing. Option B is premature, as the compliance officer should first verify the nature and extent of the suspicious activity and the involvement of Foreign Bank A before deciding whether to terminate or restrict the correspondent relationship. Option D is not feasible, as the compliance officer does not have the authority or the means to notify other U.S. financial institutions who maintain U.S. dollar correspondent accounts forForeign Bank A and Foreign Bank B, and this could also interfere with ongoing investigations or law enforcement actions.

FFIEC BSA/AML Manual, Risks Associated with Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, U.S. Dollar Drafts

Denting Dirty Dollar-Clearing: US Court of Appeals Upholds Money-Laundering Convictions Based on the Use of US Correspondent Banking Accounts, Freshfields Blog

AMLA Expands DOJ Grand Jury Subpoena Power Over Correspondent Bank Accounts and Foreign Banks, Money Laundering News

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

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

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

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

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

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is the U.S. Treasury Department’s agency that administers and enforces economic sanctions programs against countries, groups, and individualsthat pose a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the U.S. OFAC’s requirements have an extraterritorial reach because they apply not only to U.S. persons (citizens, permanent residents, entities, and those physically present in the U.S.), but also to any person or entity that engages in a transaction that has a connection to the U.S., such as using the U.S. financial system, U.S. goods, or U.S. persons. This means that intermediaries of a transaction with a U.S. nexus, such as foreign banks, brokers, or agents, are required to comply with OFAC’s regulations and may face penalties for violating them. OFAC’s jurisdiction does not depend on the registration or incorporation of an entity in the U.S., nor does it extend to foreign financial intelligence units, unless they are involved in a transaction with a U.S. nexus.

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.

Real estate ML/TF risk is highest where transparency is low or the origin of funds is obscured:

Use of cash to purchase property (A):“All-cash transactions in real estate present a high ML risk, as they bypass traditional financial scrutiny and facilitate the placement of illicit funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate Money Laundering Risks)

Use of a company for the purchase of property (D):“Purchasing property through companies, especially shell companies, can conceal the beneficial owner and the true source of funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate ML/TF Risks; FATF, Real Estate Sector)

Incorrect Options:

B: Unlicensed agents may be risky, but the core risks are A and D.

C: Trusts may add complexity but are less common/high-risk than company structures.

E: Value manipulation is risky but less so than the above.

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

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

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

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

The other option is incorrect because:

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

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

Terrorist financing can be facilitated on gaming platforms particularly through the trading of in-game items for fiat currency. This mechanism allows for the movement of value outside the formal financial system, potentially evading detection and reporting requirements.

“One of the key ML/TF risks in online gaming is the ability to convert virtual assets or in-game items into real-world (fiat) currency, thereby providing a channel for laundering money or funding terrorist activities.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing; FATF, Virtual Assets Guidance 2019)

Incorrect Options:

A: Buying in-game items with in-game currency does not in itself facilitate terrorist financing.

B: Exchanging items between players may be a step in layering but is not direct TF unless items are traded for fiat.

D: Obtaining items by in-game activity is standard gameplay and not a TF method.