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

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, one of the core principles for effective banking supervision is that the supervisor determines that banks have adequate policies and processes for identifying, assessing and managing the risk and impact of exposures to and transactions with related parties, and that these policies and processes are effectively implemented1. Failure to conduct proper due diligence on a close relative of a senior manager who requests to open an account poses the highest operational risk, as it could result in conflicts of interest, reputational damage, legal liability, or financial losses for the bank. The other options are not necessarily the highest operational risk, as they depend on the nature and extent of the relationship, the type and size of the account, and the regulatory and legal framework of the jurisdiction.

References: 1 Core principles for effective banking supervision, Principle 20.

 A financial institution should consult with its legal counsel before responding to a grand jury subpoena regarding a customer, as such subpoenas may involve complex legal issues and potential conflicts of interest. A grand jury subpoena is a legal order issued by a federal or state grand jury that compels a person or entity to produce documents, testify, or both, in connection with a criminal investigation. A financial institution that receives a grand jury subpoena should not disclose its existence or contents to the customer or any third party, unless authorized by law or the court, as doing so may constitute obstruction of justice or violate the secrecy rules of the grand jury. A financial institution should also assess and review all relevant information it has about the customer that is the subject of the subpoena, in accordance with its risk-based AML program, and consider filing a SAR if it identifies any suspicious activity.

References:

1: This article provides an overview of the legal and practical considerations for financial institutions when responding to subpoenas, including the types of subpoenas, the rules that apply, the confidentiality and privilege issues, and the procedural steps to follow.

2: This document provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding SARs and other AML considerations, including the question of how to handle grand jury subpoenas and other law enforcement inquiries.

Designating a country as being of “prime money laundering concern” allows the U.S. government to impose one or more of five special measures under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act12. These special measures are intended to protect the U.S. financial system from the risks posed by the designated country, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The fifth special measure, which is the most severe, authorizes the Treasury Department to prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions that involve the designated country12. Correspondent accounts are accounts that enable foreign banks to access the U.S. financial system and provide services to their customers, while payable-through accounts are accounts that allow foreign banks to offer their customers direct access to the U.S. financial system3. Closing these accounts effectively cuts off the designated country from the U.S. financial system and imposes significant costs and burdens on its financial sector.

References:

1: 311 Actions | U.S. Department of the Treasury

2: Press Releases - U.S. Department of the Treasury

3: Anti-Money Laundering Laws and Regulations USA 2023-2024

 The Fourth European Union Directive on money laundering (AMLD4) requires member countries to maintain registries of the beneficial owners of legal entities, such as companies, trusts, foundations, etc. This is to ensure that the true identity and ownership of the customers and the natural persons on whose behalf transactions are conducted are known to the obliged entities, such as banks, lawyers, accountants, etc., and to the competent authorities, such as regulators, supervisors, or law enforcement12. This requirement aims to prevent the misuse of legal entities for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes, and to enhance transparency and access to beneficial ownership information34.

References: 1: AMLD4, Article 30, 5; 2: AMLD4, Recital 25, 5; 3: AMLD4, Recital 26, 5; 4: AMLD4, Recital 27, 5.

Undermining the Legitimate Private Sector: One of the most serious microeconomic effects of money laundering is felt in the private sector. Money launderers are known to use front companies: businesses that appear legitimate and engage in legitimate business but are in fact controlled by criminals who commingle the proceeds of illicit activity with legitimate funds to hide the ill-gotten gains. These front companies have a competitive advantage over legitimate firms as they have access to substantial illicit funds, allowing them to subsidize products and services sold at below market rates. This makes it difficult for legitimate businesses to compete against front companies. Clearly, the management principles of these criminal enterprises are not consistent with traditional free market principles, which results in further negative macroeconomic effects

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.

References:

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

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 than others, such as those that involve cash transactions, cross-border transfers, anonymous or non-face-to-face customers, or complex or innovative features34.

References: =

1: AML risk-rating models | McKinsey

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

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

5: Anti Money Laundering Risk Assessment - Financial Crime Academy

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, one of the red flags for money laundering is “transferring funds to or from foreign countries or jurisdictions that are known to have weak anti-money laundering standards or are considered high-risk for money laundering or terrorist financing” (Module 2, Lesson 3, Part 2). This is also consistent with the suspicious activity report (SAR) criteria, which require financial institutions to report transactions that “involve funds derived from illegal activity or are intended or conducted to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity” or “involve the use of the financial institution to facilitate criminal activity” (31 CFR § 1020.320(a)(2)). Therefore, the customer’s request to transfer funds to accounts in three different foreign jurisdictions should be the focus of the SAR, as it may indicate an attempt to launder money or finance terrorism.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course

[31 CFR § 1020.320 - Reports by banks of suspicious transactions]