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

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.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources.

FATF 40 Recommendations (Recommendation 10: Customer Due Diligence).1

CFATF Technical Articles (Customer Due Diligence Measures).2

Paying a large amount in cash for an art purchase is a typical red flag of potential money laundering, as it may indicate an attempt to avoid traceability and reporting requirements. Cash transactions are often used by criminals to launder illicit funds, as they are difficult to track and verify. According to the FATF guidance on money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the art trade, cash payments above a certain threshold should be subject to enhanced due diligence and reporting obligations by art market participants (AMPs). AMPs should also be wary of customers who provide insufficient or inconsistent information about the source of funds, the purpose of the transaction, or the identity of the beneficial owner.

References:

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks and Vulnerabilities Associated with Gold, FATF, July 2023, p. 22-23.

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Vulnerabilities of Legal Professionals, FATF, June 2023, p. 38-39.

Red Flags Money laundering and terrorist financing risks, Responsible Art Market, 2017, p. 2.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks Paper recommends that banks should verify the bank has a physical presence in the country where it is incorporated and confirm the bank is subject to regulatory supervision with adequate anti-money laundering laws before opening a correspondent account. These steps are intended to prevent the establishment of relationships with shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group. Shell banks pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to hide the identity and source of funds, evade regulatory oversight, and facilitate illicit transactions. Therefore, banks should conduct enhanced due diligence on correspondent banks that operate in offshore jurisdictions, where the regulatory standards and transparency may be lower or insufficient.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, p. 1091

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.2, p. 52

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer Due Diligence for Banks, October 2001, p. 13-143

A personal banking customer who simultaneously opens several accounts with almost identical names will most likely cause further inquiry, as this could indicate an attempt to evade transaction monitoring, reporting, or identification requirements. For example, a customer could open accounts with slight variations of their name, such as John Smith, Jon Smith, J. Smith, or John Smyth, to avoid detection or aggregation of their transactions. This could also be a sign of identity theft, fraud, or money muling. Therefore, the bank should verify the customer’s identity and the purpose of the accounts, and monitor the activity for any suspicious patterns or behaviors.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, p. 1051

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.1, p. 52

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for the Banking Sector, October 2014, p. 353

 A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is a type of enforcement action that allows a financial institution to avoid criminal prosecution if it admits to wrongdoing, pays a fine, and agrees to remediate its AML program deficiencies within a specified period of time1. A cease and desist order (C&D) is another type of enforcement action that requires a financial institution to stop engaging in unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law, and to take corrective actions to address its AML program weaknesses2. Both of these actions are commonly used by regulators to address serious or systemic AML program failures by financial institutions, as evidenced by recent cases345.

References:

1: Deferred Prosecution Agreement - Wikipedia

2: FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix R – Enforcement Guidance

3: FinCEN Announces $15 Million Civil Money Penalty against Bancrédito International Bank for Willful Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act

4: Lessons From The Seven Largest AML Bank Fines In 2021

5: Fines for AML Compliance Failures - ACAMS Today

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.

References:

1: Risk-Based Approach to Compliance Management2

2: A Risk-Based Approach to Regulatory Compliance1

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, the AML Specialist at a bank should take the following actions upon receiving a confidential alert from law enforcement about suspected money launderers:

Involve the bank’s legal and compliance function to address the gravity of the matter and ensure that the bank’s response is appropriate and lawful. The legal and compliance function can also advise on the bank’s obligations and rights under the relevant laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Perform a search on the bank’s client data platform to determine if the bank has had any business with the named individuals or any related parties. The search should include current and past accounts, transactions, wire transfers, and other relevant records. The AML Specialist should also review any existing customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) information on the potential suspects and update them as necessary.

The other options are not recommended or required actions for the AML Specialist at a bank in this scenario:

Sending out an email to all of the bank’s client advisors to request information on any of the individuals could compromise the confidentiality of the alert and expose the bank to legal and reputational risks. It could also alert the suspects or their associates and hinder the law enforcement investigation.

Reporting findings back to law enforcement only if they are of any significance is not sufficient or compliant with the bank’s obligations to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity. The AML Specialist should report any relevant information or findings to law enforcement as soon as possible, regardless of their significance, and follow the established procedures and protocols for information sharing and reporting.

Responding to law enforcement that their request without a judicial order would breach the bank’s GDPR duty with respect to its clients is not accurate or helpful. The GDPR does not prohibit the bank from sharing personal data with law enforcement for the purposes of preventing, detecting, or investigating money laundering or other criminal activities, as long as the bank has a legal basis and safeguards for doing so. The bank should consult with its legal and compliance function to determine the best way to respond to the law enforcement request and balance its GDPR obligations with its anti-money laundering (AML) duties.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)

USA PATRIOT Act

The financial institution should freeze the funds or assets of designated persons and entities once this decision is approved by the Board. This is to comply with the obligation to implement targeted financial sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or other relevant authorities. Freezing means preventing any access, use, transfer, or disposal of the funds or assets by the designated persons and entities or by any other person on their behalf. The financial institution should also report the freezing action to the competent authority and the relevant sanctions committee12.

Option A is not a sufficient step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a tool to facilitate compliance. Adopting automatic screening systems to detect designated persons and entities can help the financial institution to identify potential matches and flag them for further investigation. However, screening systems are not infallible and may generate false positives or false negatives. Therefore, the financial institution should also conduct manual checks and verification of the screening results13.

Option B is not a relevant step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a measure to mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Conducting enhanced due diligence for prohibited entities on the sanctions list may be useful to obtain more information about the nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of the funds, and the beneficial ownership and control structure of the entity. However, enhanced due diligence does not replace the obligation to freeze the funds or assets of the designated persons and entities14.

Option C is not an appropriate step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a violation of the obligation to freeze the funds or assets of the designated persons and entities. Changing the risk profile to “high-risk” if an existing customer becomes a sanctioned entity and continuing to monitor further transactions may expose the financial institution to legal and reputational risks, as well as potential sanctions evasion or circumvention. The financial institution should terminate the business relationship with the designated person or entity and freeze their funds or assets without delay1 .

References: 1: ACAMS (2020), Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, pp. 47-49. 2: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.1. 3: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.2. 4: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.3. : ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.4.

A lack of information about beneficial owners is a red flag for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. It is important to identify who the actual owners of the company are to understand their potential risk exposure.

Confusing details about the proposed business activity and lack of knowledge about the proposed business are also red flags for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. This could indicate that the proposed business activity is not legitimate and is being used to conceal illegal activities.

Therefore, these two observations should be escalated to the compliance officer for further investigation.

The potential red flag that alludes to money laundering is option B, where the trio engage in minimal gambling and combine the funds to request a casino cheque for the chips presented. This behavior is indicative of structuring, which involves breaking down large transactions into smaller ones to avoid detection by the casino and regulatory authorities. The fact that the trio only used a small amount of chips to play games, and then combined their funds to request a casino cheque, raises suspicions that they may be attempting to disguise the origin of their funds.

A. Promoting the record-keeping obligations of banks to the maximum amount of data necessary for the purposes of AML investigations: "The Fifth AML Directive emphasizes that record-keeping obligations of banks must extend to the maximum amount of data necessary for the purposes of anti-money laundering investigations" (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 79).

C. Extending AML rules to entities that provide virtual currency services: "The 5AMLD expands the scope of the EU’s anti-money laundering rules to include virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers" (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 80).

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the key steps of conducting an investigation of a suspicious activity is to maintain and secure supporting documentation used to perform the investigation. This includes the transaction activity that generated the alert, the analysis performed, the decision made, and the rationale for the decision. This documentation serves as evidence of the investigation process and the compliance with the relevant policies and procedures. It also helps to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in the investigation process1

References: 1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 156.

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 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.

References:

1. Recommendation 20: Reporting of suspicious transactions

The activity described in the question raises several red flags for money laundering, such as large and frequent cash deposits, transfers to offshore jurisdictions, and involvement of a charitable organization that could be a front for illicit funds. The Compliance Officer should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the competent authority, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), as soon as possible, and provide all the relevant information and documentation to support the suspicion. Filing an STR is a legal obligation for financial institutions and does not require the consent or notification of the customer. The Compliance Officer should also follow the bank’s internal policies and procedures for handling such cases, which may include freezing the account, conducting further investigation, or escalating the matter to senior management.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Section 4.4: Reporting, pp. 137-139

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course2, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Lesson 4.4: Reporting

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Task 4.4: File internal and external reports, p. 18

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a department of the US Treasury that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions imposed by the US against countries and groups of individuals, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers. The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. The main purpose of the US Treasury Department for OFAC’s extraterritorial reach is to apply these sanctions to any person or entity that is subject to US jurisdiction, or that engages in transactions involving US persons, US dollars, or US goods or services. This way, the US can exert pressure on the targets of the sanctions and prevent them from accessing the US financial system or market. OFAC’s extraterritorial reach is authorized by Congressional legislation or presidential emergency powers, and is often based on UN Security Council resolutions or multilateral agreements.

References:

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC): Definition, Sanctions

About OFAC | Office of Foreign Assets Control

OFAC’s Extraterritorial Reach: Purpose of the US Treasury Department

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.

References:

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.

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.

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.

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.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the red flags for money laundering in real estate transactions is the use of an appraiser who is not on the approved list of the financial institution. This could indicate a possible collusion between the appraiser and the borrower or the underwriter to inflate the value of the property and obtain a higher loan amount. The anti-money laundering specialist should document the underwriter’s actions and the reasons for approving the exception, as well as the discrepancy between the appraised value and the market value of the property. The specialist should then file a suspicious transaction report (STR) to the relevant authorities, as required by the local regulations .

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 7: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 201.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 8: Anti-Money Laundering Programs, page 227.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 9: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, page 255.

Arms and related materials embargo is a type of sanction that prohibits the supply, sale, transfer, or export of arms and related materials to a targeted country, entity, or individual. This type of sanction is most likely to be used in order to avoid escalating violent conflicts and/or proliferation of weapons, as it aims to reduce the availability and access of weapons and ammunition that could fuel violence and instability. Arms and related materials embargo can also prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to non-state actors or rogue states. According to the UN, arms and related materials embargo is one of the most common and effective forms of sanctions that the Security Council imposes to address threats to international peace and security12.

References:

1: Different types of sanctions - Consilium1

2: UN Sanctions and the Prevention of Conflict - United Nations University2

The risk-based approach (RBA) is an essential foundation of the FATF Recommendations, as it allows countries, competent authorities and financial institutions to adopt a more flexible set of measures to target their resources more effectively and apply preventive measures that are commensurate to the nature of risks, in order to focus their efforts in the most effective way. The RBA is not optional, but a prerequisite for the effective implementation of the FATF Standards. The RBA requires the identification, assessment and understanding of the ML/TF risks to which the countries and FIs are exposed, and the implementation of AML/CFT measures that are proportionate and tailored to those risks. The RBA is not a “zero failure” approach, but a way to mitigate the risks in the most efficient and effective manner.

References:

FATF Recommendations, Introduction, page 11

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach to Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing - High Level Principles and Procedures, page 3

Risk-based Approach (RBA), What is the Risk-based Approach (RBA)?

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 as the 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.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 8: Anti-Money Laundering Programs, page 221.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 8: Anti-Money Laundering Programs, page 224.

An FIU is a central, national agency responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating to the competent authorities disclosures of financial information concerning suspected proceeds of crime and potential financing of terrorism or required by national legislation or regulation1. FIUs play a crucial role in the detection and prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing by collecting, processing, and analyzing financial intelligence and sharing it with domestic and foreign counterparts2. FIUs may have different organizational structures, functions, and legal frameworks, but they all adhere to the international standards and best practices set by the Egmont Group of FIUs3.

References:

What We Do | FinCEN.gov

Financial Intelligence Units: An Overview (June 2004) - IMF, page 1

[Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units]

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Sixth Edition manual, elements that can trigger a review of the existing relationship during the opening of a new account include recent adverse media on the client (page 60) and incoming transfers from high-risk jurisdictions (page 61). The other elements listed, such as regular checks on the flow of funds, a false positive result for name screening, and an estimated total income decrease, are not triggers for a review.

An AML audit is a process of evaluating an organization’s compliance with AML regulations and best practices. The audit report should provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s AML program and identify any gaps or deficiencies that need to be addressed. The compliance program should use the audit findings as an opportunity to improve its AML risk management and internal controls, and to implement corrective actions as needed. The audit findings should not be ignored or dismissed, but rather used as a tool to enhance the organization’s AML compliance performance and effectiveness.

References:

1: This web page explains what an AML compliance program is, why it is important, and what are the key components of an effective program. It also states that an AML compliance program should involve a regular review of the internal controls and systems used to detect and report financial crime, and measure their effectiveness in meeting compliance standards.

2: This blog post provides an overview of the importance and steps of an AML audit, and how to perform one effectively. It also suggests that an AML audit is a starting point to strengthen and improve the AML program, and that the insights from the audit should prompt action by the compliance team to address the deficiencies discovered.

3: This blog post discusses the best practices for AML audit compliance, and emphasizes the need for an ongoing testing process, including the audit, to keep the AML program current and effective. It also recommends effective communication among all employees who follow the program and procedures.

 According to the Wolfsberg Group, the FI should take the following steps regarding the opening of the account for the senior government official:

Reasonably establish if the source of wealth and funds of the official is legitimate. This is to ensure that the FI is not facilitating the laundering of proceeds of corruption, bribery, or other illicit activities by the official, who is considered a politically exposed person (PEP) and poses a higher risk of financial crime. The FI should obtain information and documentation on the origin and ownership of the funds, the official’s income and assets, and the purpose and expected activity of the account12.

Perform due diligence procedures on the managing intermediary. This is to verify the identity, reputation, and regulatory status of the intermediary, who acts as a third party on behalf of the official. The FI should also assess the intermediary’s own AML/CFT policies and controls, and the nature and extent of the relationship between the intermediary and the official13.

Determine whether the intermediary representative is acting on the officer’s behalf. This is to establish the beneficial ownership and control of the account, and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or undue influence by the intermediary. The FI should obtain a written confirmation from the intermediary that they are authorized to act on behalf of the official, and that they will disclose any changes in the beneficial ownership or control of the account13.

References:

1, Wolfsberg Group, Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), 2023

2, Wolfsberg Group, FAQs on Source of Wealth (SoW) & Source of Funds (SoF), 2023

3, Wolfsberg Group, FAQs on Intermediaries, 2023

According to the research report by the Council of Europe1, one of the typologies of money laundering through online gambling is the use of multiple accounts and identities to conceal the source and destination of funds. This can be done by opening several accounts under the same name using different IP addresses, or by using false or stolen identification documents to create multiple accounts. Another typology is the use of online gambling platforms that are not regulated or authorized by the jurisdiction where the customer is located, or that do not require know-your-client information from users. This can allow money launderers to access the online gambling services from multiple countries, without being subject to any verification or monitoring by the authorities.

References:

1: Research report - The use of online gambling for money laundering and the financing of terrorism purposes, Council of Europe, April 2013.

A. Offering internal policies training: This is crucial. Employees need to understand the specific procedures and policies related to customer identification and verification. These internal policies ensure consistency and compliance.

B. Offering general background and history training: While historical context is valuable, it’s not the primary focus. AML training should prioritize practical knowledge and current best practices.

C. Offering periodic refresher training: Absolutely! Regular refresher training keeps employees up-to-date with evolving AML regulations and reinforces their understanding.

D. Offering tailored training for specific roles: This is essential. Different roles require different expertise. For example, investigators need to recognize red flags, while report writers must understand how to create effective suspicious activity reports.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Internal Policies Training: AML training should cover internal policies thoroughly. This includes customer identification and verification procedures, as well as other relevant policies specific to the organization. Employees need to understand how these policies translate into day-to-day practices.

General Background and History: While historical context can be interesting, it’s not the primary focus of AML training. Instead, the emphasis should be on practical knowledge, current best practices, and real-world scenarios.

Periodic Refresher Training: Regular refresher training is essential. AML regulations evolve, and employees need to stay informed. Annual or periodic refreshers reinforce knowledge and ensure compliance.

Tailored Training for Specific Roles: Different roles within an organization have distinct responsibilities related to AML. Tailored training ensures that employees understand their specific duties. For example, investigators need to recognize suspicious patterns, while report writers must know how to create effective reports.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources.

ACAMS Certification Candidate Handbook

ACFCS AML 360 Certificate Program

The most concerning trading pattern for a compliance officer when a new customer has been onboarded in a securities firm is the customer accumulating securities of a low volume counter in small increments on a weekly basis. This type of behavior could indicate that the customer is attempting to obscure their identity or the true purpose of their trading activity, which can be indicative of money laundering or other suspicious activity. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 170).

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations are the international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and they apply to all countries and financial institutions. The Customer Due Diligence for Banks issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides guidance on how banks should conduct CDD and KYC procedures, and how they should manage the risks of correspondent banking and wire transfers. The Egmont Group Statement of Purpose outlines the objectives and functions of the Egmont Group, which is an international network of financial intelligence units (FIUs) that exchange information and cooperate in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. These three materials are relevant and useful for the bank’s expansion plans, as they cover the main aspects of AML/CFT compliance in different jurisdictions and sectors.

The USA PATRIOT Act is a US-specific legislation that enhances the powers and obligations of US authorities and financial institutions in relation to AML/CFT, but it may not be applicable or appropriate for other countries where the bank intends to operate. Therefore, it is not a necessary reference material for the bank’s international department.

References:

FATF 40 Recommendations

Customer Due Diligence for Banks

Egmont Group Statement of Purpose

Wider exposure to organized crime and corruption: When individuals or communities are exposed to organized crime networks or corrupt practices, they may become more susceptible to engaging in illicit activities. Organized crime groups often exploit vulnerabilities, leading to money laundering.

Weaker development of economy and job opportunities: In regions with limited economic growth and scarce job prospects, individuals may turn to illicit activities as a means of survival. Poverty and lack of legitimate income sources can drive people toward money laundering.

References:

1. World Bank Document: “Illicit Activity and Money Laundering from an Economic Growth Perspective” 1.

2. The Social Impact Of Money Laundering 2.

3. Money Laundering: History, Regulations, and Techniques 3.

4. The IMF and the Fight Against Illicit Financial Flows 4.

5. SSRN Paper: “Illicit Activity and Money Laundering from an Economic Growth” 5.

 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 .

References: 1: ACAMS (2020), Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, pp. 12-14, 18-19, 22-23, 26-27. 2: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 1, Section 1.2.2. 3: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 1, Section 1.2.3. 4: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 1, Section 1.2.1. : ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 1, Section 1.2.4.

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.

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.

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure and verify transactions. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized and operate outside the control of any central authority, such as a government or a bank. This makes them attractive for money launderers, who can use them to transfer funds anonymously, quickly, and globally, without leaving a trace or being subject to regulation. Cryptocurrencies pose more risk of money laundering than other sources of money, such as wire transfers, credit cards, or money service businesses, which are subject to more oversight, verification, and reporting requirements.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.9, page 37

CAMS eLearning Course, Module 1, Lesson 9

ACAMS Crypto Hub

In accordance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards [1][2], when the minimum AML requirements of the host country where a financial institution (Fl) operates are less strict than those of the Fl's home country, the Fl is required to ensure that their branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in host countries implement the requirements of the home country, to the extent that host country laws and regulations permit. This means that the Fl should not impose more strict requirements on host country branches, disregarding if host country laws and regulation permit such action, and should not close down its operations in the host countries where minimum AML requirements are less strict than those of the home country. However, the Fl should always apply additional measures on their branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in host countries to manage the money laundering and terrorist financing risk overseas.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are characteristics of D. only involving two countries, E. cooperatively combating crime between countries, and F. being useful for gathering evidence and intelligence in a foreign country. MLATs are public and binding under international law (A), can be used for obtaining banking records from treaty partners (B), and provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence ©.

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.

References:

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

When considering sharing information across the institution or within the same jurisdiction, the key legal issue that poses challenges to sharing customer-related information is data protection and privacy laws. Data protection and privacy laws exist in most countries and can vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These laws place restrictions on how customer data can be used, shared, and stored, and can limit the ability of financial institutions to share customer-related information with each other. Additionally, these laws may also require financial institutions to take additional steps to ensure the protection of customer data.

AML risk assessments are a key component of the risk-based approach to AML compliance, as required by the MLR 20171 and the FATF Recommendations2. AML risk assessments help FIs to identify, assess, and mitigate the money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face, taking into account their specific products, services, customers, and geographic locations. AML risk assessments also help FIs to allocate their resources and implement their AML policies and procedures in a proportionate and effective manner. AML risk assessments are not meant to be a one-off exercise, but rather an ongoing process that should be updated regularly to reflect changes in the FI’s risk profile and the external environment.

References:

1: The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the key elements of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is ongoing training for all relevant staff. Training should cover the legal and regulatory obligations, the risks and red flags of money laundering and terrorist financing, the procedures and controls for customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, the reporting and record-keeping requirements, and the roles and responsibilities of the staff and the management. Training should also be tailored to the specific functions and needs of the staff, and should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the AML environment and the FI’s policies and procedures.

PEPs are considered high-risk customers for AML purposes, as they may abuse their positions of power and influence to commit or facilitate corruption, bribery, embezzlement, or other financial crimes. Therefore, it is essential that the FI’s staff are aware of the definition and categories of PEPs, the sources and methods to identify and verify PEPs, the enhanced due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring that apply to PEPs, and the escalation and reporting procedures for suspicious activities involving PEPs .

If an internal audit reveals that a large group of employees do not know how to handle PEPs, this indicates a serious gap in the FI’s AML training program, which could expose the FI to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. Therefore, the next course of action that should be taken is to create a company-wide training program that covers the relevant aspects of PEPs, and to ensure that the training is delivered to all staff who deal with PEPs or have access to PEP-related information. The training should also be evaluated for its effectiveness and impact, and the results should be reported to the senior management and the board of directors.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, page 51-52

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Conducting Customer Due Diligence, page 75-78

FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22), June 2013, 1

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting Ongoing Monitoring, page 97-98

The Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide states that financial institutions should address all requests from law enforcement agencies completely and in a timely manner (Page 83). Disregarding requests when there is a justifiable reason for doing so is not recommended, as this could impede the investigation. Sharing information about the investigation with analysts is not recommended, as this could compromise the investigation. Delaying responses by informing senior management of requests is also not recommended, as this could result in a delay in the investigation.

Using cash to buy multiple cashier's checks over a period of time is considered suspicious activity of money laundering. This method is commonly known as structuring, where individuals or entities use cash to buy multiple monetary instruments such as cashier's checks in small amounts, to avoid reporting requirements. This behavior could be an attempt to evade transaction monitoring and reporting requirements by a financial institution. Additionally, the fact that the account also receives multiple electronic transfers for the same amount could be a red flag for money laundering as it is a common technique used to layer or disguise the origin of illicit funds.

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]

 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 C describes 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.

References:

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

A Penza scheme, also known as a Ponzi scheme, is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors1 The scheme relies on attracting new investors with unrealistic promises of high returns and low risk, while using their money to pay off the previous investors2 An unlicensed investment advisor who offers profits other investments cannot guarantee is likely to be involved in a Penza scheme, as this is a common way to entice unsuspecting victims3 The other options are not necessarily indicative of a Penza scheme, as they could be legitimate or involve other types of fraud.

References: 1 Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia; 2 Ponzi Schemes: Definition, Examples, and Origins - Investopedia; 3 What is Ponzi Scheme? - Sanction Scanner

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), the bank should have a clear policy on how to deal with intermediaries, such as lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or other financial institutions, that introduce or manage clients on behalf of the bank. The policy should reflect the following aspects1:

The bank should perform due diligence on the intermediary itself, including its ownership, reputation, regulatory status, and AML policies and procedures.

The bank should obtain the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and verify them using reliable and independent sources, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

The bank should assess the level of due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, and determine whether it is equivalent or comparable to the bank’s own standards. If not, the bank should perform additional due diligence on the intermediary’s clients, or decline to accept them.

The bank should monitor the transactions and activities of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

Option B is consistent with these aspects, as it states that the bank must obtain the same type of information with respect to an introduced client that would otherwise be obtained by the bank, absent the involvement of the intermediary. This ensures that the bank has a sufficient understanding of the client’s identity, source of wealth, and risk profile, and can apply appropriate AML measures.

Option C is also consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and is the account holder with the bank, but that intermediary does not conduct the same level of due diligence as the bank, it is necessary for the bank to undertake due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This ensures that the bank does not rely solely on the intermediary’s due diligence, and can identify and mitigate any potential money laundering risks associated with the clients.

Option A is not consistent with these aspects, as it states that when an intermediary introduces clients to the bank, it is not necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank should obtain and verify the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced by the intermediary, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

Option D is also not consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and arranges for the opening of accounts for its clients with the bank, and that intermediary is a financial institution subject to similar regulations, it is necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary’s clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank may rely on the due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, if the intermediary is a regulated financial institution that applies equivalent or comparable AML standards to the bank, and if the bank has access to the relevant information and documentation.

References:

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 3: Intermediaries

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.

References:

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

A sound Customer Due Diligence Program (CDD) is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) framework. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CFT, CDD involves the following elements1:

Identifying the customer and verifying their identity using reliable, independent sources of information or documents.

Identifying the beneficial owner and taking reasonable measures to verify their identity, so that the financial institution understands who ultimately owns or controls the customer or the funds.

Understanding and obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.

Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutinizing transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the financial institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, and the source of funds.

Therefore, the three elements of a sound CDD program that are listed in the question are:

Determination of what type of customer the financial institution will accept: This involves defining the customer acceptance policy and risk appetite of the financial institution, and applying appropriate risk-based measures to accept or reject customers based on their risk profile and the financial institution’s ability to manage and mitigate those risks2.

Training as to how and to what extent to identify prospective customers: This involves providing adequate and regular training to the staff who are responsible for conducting CDD, and ensuring that they are aware of the legal and regulatory requirements, the internal policies and procedures, the risk indicators, the verification methods, and the reporting obligations3.

Obtaining date of birth and address of a prospective customer: This is part of the basic information that is required to identify and verify the customer’s identity, and to establish their risk profile and the source of funds. The date of birth and address can also be used to check against various databases and watchlists to detect any potential matches with sanctioned or high-risk individuals or entities4.

The element that is not part of a sound CDD program is:

Determination of who in the institution should be assigned to the prospective customer as a liaison: This is not a mandatory or essential element of CDD, although it may be a good practice to assign a dedicated relationship manager or contact person to each customer, especially for high-risk or complex customers, to ensure effective communication, monitoring, and service delivery.

References:

FATF Guidance on Customer Due Diligence and Financial Inclusion 1

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) 2

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 4: Developing an AML/CFT Program 3

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 5: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process 4

Wolfsberg Group Guidance on Customer Due Diligence (CDD)

 The most appropriate step for an AML compliance officer to take upon receiving notice of government update including the names of the latest terrorists sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council is to update the monitoring software containing sanctioned persons. This is because the AML compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the financial institution does not engage in any transactions or business relationships with individuals or entities that are subject to sanctions, as this could expose the institution to legal, regulatory, and reputational risks. By updating the monitoring software, the AML compliance officer can ensure that the institution’s screening and filtering systems are up to date and can flag any potential matches or hits with the sanctioned persons. This would also enable the AML compliance officer to take appropriate actions, such as blocking or freezing funds, reporting to the relevant authorities, and conducting further due diligence, if necessary.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org, Overview.

AML Compliance Officer and Their Responsibilities - Tookitaki, Role and Responsibilities of an AML Compliance Officer.

What is an AML Compliance Officer? - Sanction Scanner, Communicate openly with the company’s internal management team.

Guidance on Existing AML Program Rule Compliance … - FinCEN.gov, Financial Institutions Toll-Free Hotline.

Evaluating the risk scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every eighteen to twenty-four months, before the launch of a new product, or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), senior management and the Board of Directors have the ultimate responsibility for the effectiveness of the AML program and the compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, they should be informed of all significant STRs and the numbers and trends of the filings, as this would help them to assess the level of risk exposure and the adequacy of the controls and resources. The other options are either too restrictive or too burdensome for senior management and the Board of Directors, and may interfere with the timely and confidential filing of STRs.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 361; ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 12

The specialist should recommend directing the teller (cashier) to file a suspicious transaction report (STR). This is because the teller (cashier) has failed to comply with the bank’s internal policies and procedures for reporting unusual or suspicious activity, which is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program1. The teller (cashier) should have filed an internal report of unusual activity as soon as he or she noticed the suspicious transactions, regardless of the personal circumstances or the length of service of the customer involved2. Failing to do so could expose the bank to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, or legal liability3.

The other options are not appropriate recommendations for the specialist to make in this situation. Continuing to monitor the accounts is not sufficient, as it does not address the past non-compliance or the potential money laundering risk posed by the suspicious transactions. Refreshing anti-money laundering training for the teller (cashier) is not enough, as it does not ensure that the teller (cashier) will report the suspicious transactions or prevent future violations. Suspending the teller’s (cashier’s) employment is too harsh, as it does not take into account the teller’s (cashier’s) long and exemplary work record, the personal hardship faced by the teller’s (cashier’s) family, or the possibility of remedial actions or corrective measures4.

References:

1: Internal Controls | FinCEN.gov1 2: Reporting Suspicious Transactions - ACAMS2 3: The Consequences of Non-Compliance with AML Regulations - Blog | Unit213 4: Employee Discipline in the Workplace: A Guide for Managers4

The most important consideration when deciding whether to recommend closing the account is the institution’s anti-money laundering policy. This is because the policy should provide clear and consistent criteria for account closure decisions, based on the risk assessment, the nature and severity of the suspicious activity, the customer due diligence information, and the legal and regulatory obligations of the institution. The policy should also ensure that the account closure process is independent, objective, and transparent, and that it does not compromise the confidentiality of the suspicious transaction report or the investigation.

References: =

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2, page 1971

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 5.4, video time 9:00-10:302

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 145, page 2863

Bank A should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) on the transaction in Country A, as it is the financial institution that observes and processes the suspicious activity in its jurisdiction. According to the FATF Recommendations, financial institutions should report any transaction that they have reason to suspect is related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other criminal activities, regardless of the amount involved1. The STR should include information about the originator, the beneficiary, and the purpose of the transaction, as well as the reasons for suspicion2. Bank A should also comply with any legal or regulatory requirements in Country A regarding the reporting of cross-border wire transfers3.

References:

1: FATF Recommendation 20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions

2: FATF Interpretive Note to Recommendation 20

3: FATF Recommendation 16 - Wire transfers

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 1, page 91, placement is the first stage of money laundering, where the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system. This stage involves the highest risk of detection, as the money launderers may use various methods to avoid suspicion, such as structuring, commingling, or using cash-intensive businesses. Placement is followed by layering and integration, which are the second and third stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are moved and disguised through multiple transactions and entities, and then integrated into the legitimate economy as seemingly legal assets.

The other options are not the financial stages of money laundering, although they may be related to some aspects or techniques of money laundering. Option A, integration, is the final stage of money laundering, not the first. Option B, structuring, is a method of placement, not a stage of money laundering. Structuring, also known as smurfing, is the practice of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits or transactions to avoid reporting thresholds or scrutiny. Option C, off shoring, is a term that refers to the relocation of assets or activities to another jurisdiction, usually for tax or regulatory advantages. Off shoring may be used by money launderers to exploit the differences or loopholes between jurisdictions, but it is not a stage of money laundering.

References:

1: ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 9: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-1.pdf

An internal investigation log is primarily intended to track the status of investigations into unusual activity. This is to ensure that the investigations are conducted in a timely, thorough, and consistent manner, and that the results and recommendations are documented and communicated to the relevant parties12. An internal investigation log can also help the organization to identify any trends, patterns, or gaps in its anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program, and to measure its effectiveness and efficiency3.

An internal investigation log is not intended to provide training on investigations to the anti-money laundering officer and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), report status of investigations to the Board of Directors, or detect and monitor possible suspicious activity. These are separate functions that may involve the use of the internal investigation log, but are not its primary purpose.

References:

1: How to Conduct Effective AML Investigations - Blog | Unit211 2: BSA/AML Internal Audit: PwC2 3: Anti-Money Laundering: 5 Steps to Conduct an Audit3

 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.

References:

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.

https://egmontgroup.org/en/content/about

"The Egmont Group is a united body of 165 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). The Egmont Group provides a platform for the secure exchange of expertise and financial intelligence to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF). This is especially relevant as FIUs are uniquely positioned to cooperate and support national and international efforts to counter terrorist financing and are the trusted gateway for sharing financial information domestically and internationally in accordance with global Anti Money Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) standards.

This method is indicative of potential money laundering and terrorist financing activity because it involves several red flags, such as:

The use of cash, which is anonymous and difficult to trace

The urgency of the transfer, which may suggest a need to move funds quickly before they are detected

The destination of the transfer, which may be a high risk country with weak anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) controls or sanctions

The lack of information about the client and the beneficiary, which may indicate a lack of due diligence or customer identification

These factors may indicate that the client is trying to conceal the source, ownership, or purpose of the funds, or that the funds are related to illicit activities such as money laundering or terrorist financing.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.2: Money Laundering Methods

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.2: Money Laundering Methods, pp. 35-36

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.2: Money Laundering Methods, Slide 14

The board of directors is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the financial institution has an effective anti-money laundering program that complies with the applicable laws and regulations. If the institution receives a regulatory enforcement action, the board should take prompt and corrective actions to address the deficiencies and mitigate the risks of further violations or penalties. One of the most important actions is to instruct the compliance officer to develop a plan to remediate the institution’s anti-money laundering program, which should include a root cause analysis, a gap assessment, a timeline, and a budget. The board should also monitor the implementation and progress of the remediation plan, and communicate with the regulators on a regular basis.

The other options are not appropriate actions for the board of directors to take in response to a regulatory enforcement action. Terminating the compliance officer and staff may not solve the underlying issues of the anti-money laundering program, and may create more disruption and instability. Purchasing and installing a new suspicious activity monitoring system may not be necessary or sufficient to address the deficiencies, and may entail additional costs and challenges. Hiring an attorney to protest the enforcement action may not be in the best interest of the institution, and may antagonize the regulators and escalate the situation.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.2: Regulatory Examinations and Enforcement Actions, pp. 171-174.

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation Guide, Section 3: Regulatory Compliance, pp. 23-24.

Cash couriers are individuals who physically transport cash or other monetary instruments across borders or within a country, often to avoid detection by authorities or reporting obligations. Cash couriers are a common method used by terrorist financiers to move funds without leaving an audit trail, as cash is anonymous, portable, and widely accepted12.

References:

1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Terrorist Financing, Section 4.2: Methods of Terrorist Financing, Slide 9 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Terrorist Financing, Page 97

The U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. OFAC publishes lists of individuals and entities that are subject to various sanctions programs, such as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (SSI List), and the Foreign Sanctions Evaders List (FSE List). These lists are updated frequently and can be accessed through OFAC’s website or other sources12.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. FATF publishes lists of jurisdictions that have strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) regimes, and calls on its members and other countries to apply enhanced due diligence or counter-measures to protect themselves from the risks emanating from these jurisdictions. These lists are updated periodically and can be accessed through FATF’s website or other sources34.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Sanctions, p. 63-64 2: U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions  3: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: FATF Recommendations, p. 77-78 4: Financial Action Task Force, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/#high-risk

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.

References: =

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

it describes a reason why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, which is names of the settlor and beneficiaries are not publicly available. This means that the true owners and controllers of the funds or assets held by the trust are hidden from the public and the authorities, and can only be accessed by the trustee or the protector, who may be complicit or unaware of the money laundering scheme. This creates a high level of anonymity and secrecy for the money launderers, who can use the trust to move, disguise, or conceal the origin and destination of their illicit funds.

The other options are not necessarily reasons why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, although they may have some advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option B describes a possible motive for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is to minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C describes a possible challenge or obstacle for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is offshore jurisdictions are unfamiliar with trust, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be other legal or financial vehicles available in those jurisdictions. Option D describes a possible characteristic or feature of a trust, which is trusts may hold assets of significant size, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be valid reasons or sources for the large assets.

References:

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 4, pages 86-87

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

Suspicious transaction report (STR) information is confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone outside the compliance function or law enforcement authorities. Providing STR information to the credit department could compromise the integrity of the reporting process and expose the institution to legal risks. The compliance officer should decline to provide the STR information to the credit department and explain the reasons for doing so.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, page 136

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, Candidate Handbook, page 16

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 4.3: Suspicious Transaction Reporting

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Practice Test 1,

A large cash deposit is a potential indicator of money laundering, especially if it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile or behavior. Therefore, the bank should ask the customer about the source and purpose of the funds, and verify the information if possible. In this case, the customer claims to have sold a used car and received cash, which may be a reasonable explanation. However, the bank should not rely solely on the customer’s statement, but should also monitor the account for any further cash transactions or suspicious activity that may indicate money laundering. For example, the bank should check if the customer withdraws the cash soon after the deposit, transfers the funds to other accounts or jurisdictions, or engages in structuring or smurfing to avoid reporting thresholds.

The bank should not do nothing, as this may expose the bank to regulatory or reputational risks, or facilitate money laundering. The bank should also not file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) unless there are other grounds to suspect money laundering, as this may be premature or unnecessary. The bank should not close the account before another issues arise, as this may be disproportionate or discriminatory, and may also alert the customer to the bank’s suspicion.

References:

[ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition], Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 103-104, 107-108.

Customer Identification Program - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 4-5.

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 4-5.

18 AML Analyst Interview Questions (With Example Answers), ResumeCat, accessed on February 9, 2024.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a US agency that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC has a list of sanctions programs and country information for various regions and topics, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and more2. If a charity is headquartered in a country on the OFAC list, it means that the US government has imposed restrictions or prohibitions on transactions or dealings with that country, its government, entities, or individuals. This poses a high risk of violating the sanctions regulations and exposing the bank to legal, regulatory, or reputational consequences. Therefore, the bank may decide to terminate the banking relationship with the charity to avoid such risks.

The other options are not sufficient reasons to terminate the banking relationship, as they may not indicate illegal or suspicious activities by the charity. A high turnover rate of official positions may be due to various factors, such as organizational changes, staff turnover, or personal reasons. It does not necessarily imply that the charity is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. However, the bank should verify the identity and authority of the new officials and update the customer due diligence information accordingly. The charity may have several incoming international funds transfers because it receives donations or grants from different sources or countries. This is not unusual for an international charity, as long as the funds are consistent with its stated purpose and activities. The bank should monitor the transactions and report any anomalies or red flags to the relevant authorities. The flow of funds both in and out may be complex and hard to trace because the charity operates in multiple jurisdictions or sectors, or has a decentralized or layered structure. This may increase the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but it does not necessarily mean that the charity is engaged in such activities. The bank should conduct enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the charity’s transactions and beneficiaries, and apply a risk-based approach to mitigate the potential risks.

References: 1: Sanctions List Search Tool | Office of Foreign Assets Control 2: Sanctions Programs and Country Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 4, page 1191, transaction records include any records that reflect the movement of funds or assets, such as wire transfers, checks, deposits, withdrawals, securities trades, etc. Therefore, items 1, 2, and 4 are examples of transaction records that should be delivered in response to a legal request. Item 3, signature cards, are not transaction records, but rather account opening documents that contain the customer’s name, address, identification, and signature. These documents may be relevant for customer due diligence or identification purposes, but they do not reflect the transaction activities of the customer.

References:

1: ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 119: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

https://www.naic.org/documents/committees_d_antifraud_meetingcc_faqsinsurance_103105.pdf

Paying the quarterly life insurance premium using money orders from two different banks is considered a red flag for potential money laundering. This is because money orders are often used by money launderers to avoid the scrutiny of banks and regulators, and to disguise the source and origin of funds12. Using money orders from two different banks also suggests that the client is trying to evade the reporting thresholds or the record-keeping requirements that apply to cash transactions3. The other transactions are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may warrant further due diligence depending on the risk profile of the client and the nature of the insurance product.

References: 1: AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, ComplyAdvantage, 5; 2: AML fraud flags: best practices for insurers, Thomson Reuters, 6; 3: Money Laundering ‘Red Flags’: How To Spot Risky Scenarios, ThinkAdvisor, 7

 MSBs are frequently accused of being high risk for money laundering because they offer services that can facilitate the movement and conversion of illicit funds, such as currency exchange, money transmission, cheque cashing, and online payment. However, not all MSBs pose the same level of risk, and the degree of regulatory oversight and compliance requirements for MSBs may differ significantly depending on the jurisdiction they operate in. Some countries may have robust anti-money laundering (AML) regimes for MSBs, while others may have weak or inconsistent regulations, or even no regulations at all. This creates challenges and vulnerabilities for MSBs that operate across borders, as they may face different expectations and obligations from different authorities, or encounter gaps or loopholes in the AML framework. Moreover, some MSBs may operate informally or illegally, without registering or obtaining licenses from the relevant regulators, making them harder to detect and supervise. Therefore, MSBs are often perceived as high risk for money laundering, as they may be exploited by criminals who seek to take advantage of the regulatory discrepancies or deficiencies among countries.

References:

Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses1

What Is A Money Services Business?2

Money Services Business (MSB) Information Center3

Money Services Business (MSB): Types, Examples, & AML Compliance4

According to the CDD Rule, covered financial institutions must establish and maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to identify and verify beneficial owners of legal entity customers and to include such procedures in their anti-money laundering compliance program1. These procedures should also be updated as necessary to reflect changes in the law or the institution’s risk profile2. Moreover, the institution should provide adequate training to its employees on the new requirements and monitor their compliance3.

References:

1: FinCEN Guidance, FIN-2020-G002, August 3, 2020, p. 1

2: Your responsibilities under money laundering supervision - GOV.UK, Section: Customer due diligence requirements

3: Customer identification: Know your customer (KYC) | AUSTRAC, Section: Training and awareness

The FATF 40 Recommendations are the international standards for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing. They provide a comprehensive and consistent framework of measures that countries should implement in their national systems. Recommendation 5 of the FATF 40 Recommendations states that countries should criminalize the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist organizations. This means that countries should adopt laws that make it an offence to provide or collect funds or other assets with the intention or knowledge that they will be used to carry out terrorist acts or support terrorist organizations. Countries should also ensure that such offences are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. Furthermore, countries should ensure that terrorist financing offences extend to any person who wilfully provides or collects funds or other assets by any means, directly or indirectly, with the unlawful intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out terrorist acts or support terrorist organizations. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Criminalize, as this is the action that countries should take related to the financing of terrorist acts in accordance with the FATF 40 Recommendations.

References:

FATF website

FATF 40 Recommendations - February 2012

FATF Recommendation 5 - Criminalisation of Terrorist Financing

 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 financial institutions 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.

References:

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

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 large amounts 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.

References:

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

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 it may 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.

References:

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

According to the Wolfsberg Principles on Correspondent Banking1, an institution should consider the following three elements in its enhanced due diligence process for higher risk respondent bank customers:

The quality of the respondent’s AML and client identification controls: The correspondent should assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the respondent’s AML policies, procedures, and systems, as well as its compliance with applicable AML laws and regulations. The correspondent should also verify that the respondent has implemented appropriate customer identification and verification measures, and that it maintains sufficient records of its customers and transactions.

A risk-based determination as to whether or not the respondent is a shell bank: The correspondent should ensure that the respondent is not a shell bank, which is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The correspondent should also avoid establishing or maintaining relationships with banks that are known to allow their accounts to be used by shell banks.

Whether a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) has an interest or management role in the respondent: The correspondent should identify and assess the potential risks associated with any PEPs who have an ownership or management interest in the respondent, or who are customers of the respondent. The correspondent should apply enhanced scrutiny and monitoring to such relationships, and obtain senior management approval before establishing or continuing them.

References:

Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 2022 by the Wolfsberg Group, October 2022.

 The best option for the compliance officer is to follow the financial institution’s established STR reporting policy, which should include procedures for reporting suspicious activity involving senior management or board members. This would ensure that the compliance officer acts in accordance with the bank’s internal controls and governance, and avoids any potential conflicts of interest or breaches of confidentiality. The other options are not advisable because they could either compromise the integrity of the STR filing, expose the compliance officer to legal or reputational risks, or alert the subject of the investigation.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 1401

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 843

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, designated BSA/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.

References:

1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Board of Directors and Senior Management Oversight

Screening customers at onboarding and quarterly thereafter is not sufficient to ensure compliance with economic sanctions, as sanctions lists may change frequently and the financial institution may not be aware of the latest updates. Screening should occur promptly after list updates to ensure that the financial institution is not dealing with a sanctioned individual or entity, or facilitating a prohibited transaction. This is recommended by the international guidance from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Wolfsberg Group12. Screening and performing enhanced due diligence on new relationships is also important, but not the only step to ensure compliance.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Sanctions, page 86

The Wolfsberg Group Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire 2014, Section 5: Sanctions Policy, page 12

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.1: Sanctions

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 109

The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4th AMLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the Union’s financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the provisions of the 4th AMLD is to lower the currency threshold for cash payments from €15,000 to €10,000. This means that any person who makes or receives cash payments of €10,000 or more, whether in a single transaction or in several linked transactions, is subject to customer due diligence and record-keeping obligations. The 4th AMLD also extends its applicability to providers of gambling services, which are now listed as ‘obliged entities’.

References:

Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.

EUR-Lex - 02015L0849-20210630 - EN - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.

Key elements of the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Section: Cash payments.

Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, Section: New EU AML/CFT Regulation.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the red flags for money laundering in cash-intensive businesses is “the presence of privately-owned ATMs on the premises” (p. 222). This could indicate that the business is using the ATM to deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash from illicit sources, or to facilitate the movement of funds across borders. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering risk, as they could be explained by legitimate factors such as the change in customer preferences, the economic situation, or the expansion of the business.

References:

ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.

CFI. (2023)Money Laundering - Overview, How It Works, Example 1. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com

CALERT. (2016)How Do Criminals Launder Money Through a Restaurant? 2. Retrieved from https://calert.info

A bank’s risk assessment is a process of identifying, measuring, and mitigating the potential risks that the bank faces in its operations, products, services, and customers. According to the ACAMS Study Guide, a bank should focus on the following areas when performing a risk assessment1:

The type and location of the institution’s clients. This involves analyzing the customer base, the types of accounts and transactions, the source and destination of funds, the level of due diligence and verification, and the risk profile of the customers. For example, a bank should consider whether its customers are individuals or entities, domestic or foreign, politically exposed persons, high-net-worth individuals, non-profit organizations, or cash-intensive businesses. The location of the customers may also indicate the level of exposure to money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions, or tax evasion risks.

The nature and breadth of the services and products the institution provides. This involves evaluating the range and complexity of the products and services offered by the bank, the delivery channels, the payment methods, and the innovation and technology involved. For example, a bank should consider whether it offers wire transfers, correspondent banking, trade finance, private banking, trust and fiduciary services, prepaid cards, mobile banking, or cryptocurrency services. The nature and breadth of the services and products may also affect the level of transparency, traceability, and compliance of the transactions.

The geographic locations where the institution does business. This involves assessing the jurisdictions where the bank operates, where its customers reside, where its counterparties are located, and where the funds flow. For example, a bank should consider whether it has branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates in high-risk countries, whether it serves customers from high-risk countries, whether it engages in cross-border transactions, and whether it complies with the local laws and regulations of the countries where it does business. The geographic locations where the institution does business may also influence the level of exposure to political, legal, regulatory, or reputational risks.

References:

1: ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments, 1

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.

References:

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

According to the guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the federal banking agencies, a financial institution is legally permitted to discuss any aspects of the reported activity with the law enforcement officer who contacts them about the suspicious transaction report (SAR), as long as the officer provides appropriate credentials and a written request for the information. The financial institution is also legally permitted to send the deposit documents referenced in the SAR, as they are part of the supporting documentation that may be requested by law enforcement1

However, the financial institution is not legally permitted to provide copies of the customer’s loan documents or explain the customer’s loan payment history, as they are not directly related to the reported activity and may contain confidential information that is protected by privacy laws or contractual agreements. The financial institution should only disclose the minimum amount of information necessary to respond to the law enforcement request and should not volunteer any information that is not relevant or requested12

References:

1: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, FinCEN and Federal Banking Agencies, 2021, Question 1

2: The best practices for effective Suspicious Activity Reporting, The Payments Association, 2020

 these are the essential components of an effective anti-money laundering program for any financial institution, especially an offshore one. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, an anti-money laundering program should include the following elements1:

A risk assessment that identifies and evaluates the money laundering and terrorist financing risks faced by the institution, and the measures taken to mitigate them.

A compliance program that establishes policies, procedures, and controls to prevent, detect, and report money laundering and terrorist financing activities, and to comply with the applicable laws and regulations of the host and chartering countries.

A designated compliance officer who is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of the compliance program, and for liaising with the relevant authorities and stakeholders.

A training program that provides regular and appropriate education and awareness to senior management and staff on their roles and responsibilities in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, and on the latest trends and typologies in these areas.

An independent audit function that reviews and tests the adequacy and effectiveness of the compliance program, and reports the findings and recommendations to senior management and the board of directors.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s capital adequacy requirements for the host country (answer A) are not directly related to anti-money laundering, but rather to the prudential regulation and supervision of banks. They are important for ensuring the financial soundness and stability of banks, but they are not sufficient to prevent or combat money laundering and terrorist financing2.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 139-140. 2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Bank for International Settlements.

 The important fact to include in the STR is the recent change in the timing of deposits and withdrawals in the account, as this indicates a possible change in the customer’s source and use of funds, and may suggest money laundering or other illicit activity. The customer’s work history, the amount of his monthly retirement check, the fact that he is well known to the bank staff, and the fact that he has lived in the area and banked at this bank for 25 years are not relevant for the STR, as they do not explain the unusual pattern of transactions in his account.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, page 131

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 4.2: Suspicious Transaction Reporting

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 97

The primary consideration the institution should keep in mind when deciding whether to agree to the law enforcement request is whether the institution can continue to meet its regulatory obligations with the accounts open. This is because the institution has a duty to comply with the applicable laws and regulations, and to protect its reputation and integrity from being associated with money laundering or terrorist financing. The institution should assess the risks and benefits of keeping the account open, and consult with its legal counsel and senior management before making a decision. The institution should also document its decision and the rationale behind it, and communicate it to the law enforcement agency12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 7: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, p. 143-144 2: FATF Guidance: Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Measures and Financial Inclusion, February 2013, p. 50-51, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/AML_CFT_Measures_and_Financial_Inclusion_2013.pdf

The junior account manager should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Country A, as he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the customer is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. The customer’s attempt to deposit a large sum of cash, followed by a series of smaller wire transfers from a high-risk jurisdiction, indicates a possible case of structuring or smurfing, which are techniques used by criminals to avoid detection and reporting thresholds. The junior account manager should not close the account, as this could alert the customer and disrupt the investigation by the FIU or law enforcement. The junior account manager should also not notify the anti-money laundering specialist of his bank, as this could create a conflict of interest or breach of confidentiality, unless the bank’s policy requires such notification. The junior account manager should also not offer the customer a more secure method of depositing, as this could be seen as facilitating or condoning the customer’s illicit activities, or exposing the bank to legal or reputational risks.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, pages 97-98, 103-104, 107-108.

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 272.

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, such as 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.

References:

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

Physical certificates are documents that represent ownership of securities, such as stocks or bonds, that are issued by a company or a government. Physical certificates present a money laundering risk to broker-dealers for two reasons:

The trade information on a physical certificate can be easily altered, such as the name of the owner, the date of issuance, or the number of shares. This can facilitate the concealment or falsification of the origin, ownership, or value of the securities, and enable the laundering of illicit funds through the purchase or sale of the securities.

Physical certificates may be provided to nominees for deposit or settled in off-market transactions, such as private placements, bearer bonds, or direct transfers. This can bypass the normal reporting or recordkeeping requirements of the broker-dealer, and avoid the scrutiny or verification of the identity, source of funds, or beneficial ownership of the securities.

References:

Two Reasons Physical Certificates Pose Money Laundering Risks to Broker …

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS

ACAMS Online Certificates | ACAMS

 This involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions that are below the reporting threshold of $10,000 in the United States, in order to avoid detection and reporting by the financial institution. Structuring is a red flag for money laundering and should be reported to the authorities as a suspicious activity. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, as they could have legitimate explanations. For example, the customers may have a family or business connection to the same recipient in Country B, or they may have a regular need to send money three times a week.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.2: Common Money Laundering Techniques

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 91

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Study Guide, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Page 38

 Having inadequate privacy policies and procedures can expose an organization to legal risks such as industry or regulatory sanctions and charges of deceptive business practices. Industry or regulatory sanctions can result from violating the laws and regulations that govern data privacy and protection, such as the GDPR, the CCPA, or the GLBA. These sanctions can include fines, penalties, injunctions, or revocation of licenses. Charges of deceptive business practices can arise from misleading or false statements about how the organization collects, uses, or discloses personal data, or from failing to comply with its own privacy policies and procedures. These charges can lead to lawsuits, settlements, or enforcement actions by authorities such as the FTC or the state attorneys general.

References: =

The 4 Biggest Risks of Non-Compliance With Data Privacy Regulations

Security and privacy laws, regulations, and compliance: The complete guide

An Ethical Approach to Data Privacy Protection

These are the information that can help the correspondent bank to assess the risk profile, the regulatory compliance, and the operational capacity of the respondent bank, and to verify its identity and legitimacy. The correspondent bank should obtain and verify the following information about the respondent bank:

Respondent’s management, nature of license, and major business activity. This can help the correspondent bank to understand the governance, the legal status, and the core functions of the respondent bank, and to evaluate its reputation, integrity, and competence.

The quality of supervision in the home country. This can help the correspondent bank to determine the level of oversight and regulation that the respondent bank is subject to, and to identify any potential gaps or weaknesses in the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework of the home country.

Respondent’s location, in particular the existence of a real physical presence. This can help the correspondent bank to verify the actual existence and operation of the respondent bank, and to avoid dealing with shell banks or banks located in high-risk or non-cooperative jurisdictions.

The other option is not necessarily information that should be included to establish a rigorous “Know Your Respondent” procedure, although it may have some relevance or importance depending on the circumstances and the nature of the correspondent relationship. Option 2 describes computer equipment and software capability, which may be useful to assess the technical and operational compatibility and efficiency of the respondent bank, but it is not essential to evaluate its risk or compliance level.

References:

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 154-155

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

References:

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 (the 6th edition)

'https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/wolfsberg-standards/8.%20Wolfsberg-Correspondent-Banking-Principles-2014.pdf - page 6 Monitoring and Reporting of Suspicious Activities The institution shall implement bank-wide policies and procedures to detect and investigate unusual or suspicious activity and report any such activity as required by applicable law. These will include guidance on what is considered to be unusual or suspicious and give examples thereof. The policies and proce dures shall include appropriate monitoring of the Correspondent Bank’s activity, incorporating due diligence results such as customer risk rating and other factors considered meaningful in the assessment of transaction activity risk. In turn, the results of suspicious activity monitoring shall be factored into the periodic review of the client’s file, particularly when the results of transaction monitoring indicate elevated risk levels.

 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, or directors 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 territory that 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.

References:

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

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.

References:

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

Beneficial Ownership Meaning and Regulation - Investopedia

What is a nominee shareholder? | LawBite

A money laundering investigation that involves multiple countries can be challenging due to different legal systems, languages, cultures, and levels of cooperation. Two factors that can assist such an investigation are:

Law enforcement and other authorities should have access to financial information that is pertinent to the investigation. This can help them trace the flow of illicit funds, identify the perpetrators and beneficiaries, and gather evidence for prosecution. Financial information can be obtained from various sources, such as financial institutions, financial intelligence units, regulators, and international organizations.

Law enforcement and other authorities should be allowed to establish and utilize joint investigative teams with law enforcement in other countries. This can enhance coordination, communication, and information sharing among the authorities involved, and allow them to pool resources, expertise, and evidence. Joint investigative teams can also facilitate mutual legal assistance and extradition requests.

References:

Financial Action Task Force (FATF), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, The FATF Recommendations, February 2012, updated June 2019, Recommendation 40, pp. 120-123

FATF, Best Practices on Establishing and Operating a Joint Investigative Team, June 2020, pp. 5-6

FATF, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Investigations, June 2018, pp. 11-12

 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.

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), the bank should file a SAR if it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that a transaction involves funds derived from illegal activity, or is intended or conducted to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity, or to evade any BSA regulation or federal law, or has no business or apparent lawful purpose, or is not the sort in which the customer would normally be expected to engage1. The scenario described in the question meets these criteria, as the small deposits and withdrawals from a high-risk country could indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The bank should also document its decision to file or not file a SAR, and retain the supporting documentation for five years1.

The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the BSA requirements, or do not adequately address the potential risk of the activity. Blocking any further activity could alert the customer of the bank’s suspicion, and could also interfere with law enforcement investigations. Initiating an investigation into the activity could be part of the bank’s due diligence process, but it does not substitute the obligation to file a SAR if the activity is suspicious. Contacting the customer could also tip off the customer, or elicit false or misleading explanations that could hinder the bank’s assessment of the activity.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 82-83. 12345678 [9]

 the correspondent bank has engaged in a high-risk activity that could expose the primary bank to sanctions violations, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States1. Opening branches in a country on the OFAC list indicates that the correspondent bank is not complying with the sanctions requirements, and could be facilitating transactions for sanctioned entities or individuals. This would pose a serious risk for the primary bank, which is responsible for conducting due diligence and monitoring of its correspondent banking relationships2. Therefore, the primary bank should terminate the relationship with the correspondent bank to avoid any potential liability or penalties.

The other options are not as compelling as A, because they do not necessarily indicate that the correspondent bank is violating any laws or regulations, or that the primary bank is exposed to significant risks. Option B could be a cause for concern, but it does not imply that the correspondent bank is involved in any wrongdoing, or that the compliance officer has any influence over the correspondent banking activities. Option C could suggest that the correspondent bank is engaging in unusual or suspicious transactions, but it does not mean that the primary bank should terminate the relationship immediately, as it could also be a result of changes in the correspondent bank’s business profile, customer base, or market conditions. Option D is a normal and expected part of the correspondent banking relationship, as the primary bank has the right and obligation to request transactional details from the correspondent bank to verify the legitimacy and source of funds, and to identify any red flags or anomalies3.

References:

1: OFAC website

2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 178

3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 4

4: ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 93

: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions-programs-and-information

: https://www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition

: https://www.exam-labs.com/video-training/acams-cams

: https://vceplus.io/exam-cams/

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 illicit funds12. 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.

References: 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.

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.

References:

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) 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.

References:

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 Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the best practices for hiring an AML officer is to do a thorough background check, including verifying the candidate’s credentials, qualifications, references, and reputation1. This is because the AML officer plays a crucial role in ensuring the compliance and integrity of the financial institution, and therefore must have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience, and ethics to perform the job effectively and professionally. A background check can also help to identify any potential conflicts of interest, criminal records, or regulatory sanctions that may affect the candidate’s suitability for the position1. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Confering with the regulatory agency may not be necessary or appropriate, as the hiring decision is ultimately the responsibility of the financial institution, and the regulatory agency may not have any specific or relevant information or guidance on the candidate2.

C. Hiring the individual, relying on the recommendation of the correspondent, may not be sufficient or prudent, as the correspondent may have different standards, expectations, or interests than the financial institution, and may not have conducted a comprehensive or objective assessment of the candidate3.

D. Hiring the individual on a probationary basis may not be feasible or fair, as the AML officer role requires a high level of trust, authority, and responsibility, and the financial institution may not be able to evaluate the candidate’s performance or potential in a short period of time4.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 147

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 148

3: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 147

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 148

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 longer entrusted 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.

References:

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

having an outdated and incomplete risk assessment could expose the financial institution to significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks that are not identified, measured, or mitigated. The risk assessment is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering program, and it should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the business environment, customer profile, product offerings, delivery channels, and regulatory requirements12. A risk assessment that is several years old and does not cover all current products and services could fail to capture the emerging threats and vulnerabilities that the financial institution faces, and could result in inadequate or inappropriate controls, policies, and procedures. This could lead to the highest potential for unmitigated risk, as the financial institution could be exploited by money launderers and terrorist financiers, and face regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and financial losses.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS1

Risk assess your business for money laundering supervision - GOV.UK2

shell banks are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with any regulated financial institution. They are often used by money launderers and terrorist financiers to hide their illicit activities and evade regulatory oversight. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits US financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts with shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their foreign correspondent banks do not provide services to shell banks12. Therefore, the US does not have jurisdiction over shell banks operating in foreign jurisdictions, unless they are involved in transactions that violate US laws or sanctions.

References:

USA PATRIOT Act Section 313: Prohibition on U.S. Correspondent Accounts with Foreign Shell Banks1

Fact Sheet Regarding the Treasury Department’s Use of Sanctions Authorities to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing3

a qualified compliance officer is a mandatory element of all anti-money laundering programs, regardless of the type or size of the financial institution. The compliance officer is responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing the anti-money laundering program, ensuring its compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, and reporting any suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities12. The compliance officer should have sufficient authority, resources, and expertise to perform these duties effectively.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org1

Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements For Insurance Companies Frequently Asked Questions | FinCEN.gov2

payments received on the account that reference unknown companies in the instructions indicate a possible attempt to obscure the source or purpose of the funds. This could be a sign of money laundering, tax evasion, fraud, or other illicit activities. Such payments should be referred to AML Investigations for further review and verification of the identity and legitimacy of the companies involved.

References:

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones, page 18, paragraph 57: “The dealer should also pay attention to the information provided by the customer on the source and origin of the funds or assets, and verify it where possible. For example, the dealer should be alert to situations where the customer provides vague, incomplete or inconsistent information about the source and origin of the funds or assets, or where the information provided does not match with the customer’s profile or business activity.”

Risk-Based Approach For Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones (DPMS), section “Business-based risk approach”, sub-section “2- Geographical location”: “You must also assess the geographical location of your business and the countries you deal with. You must be aware of the countries that are high-risk or non-cooperative jurisdictions as per the FATF recommendations. You must also consider the countries that are subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures issued by the United Nations, the European Union, or any other relevant organization. You must also be careful of the countries that are known to have significant levels of corruption, organized crime, or terrorist activity.”

What are the Risks of Money Laundering for Precious Metals Dealers?, section “Money Laundering Red Flags for DPMS”, bullet point 4: “The customer provides vague, incomplete, or inconsistent information about the source and origin of the funds or assets.”

Implementing a sound customer due diligence (CDD) program is the most effective way to prevent money laundering through financial institutions, according to experts. CDD is the process of identifying and verifying the identity of customers and assessing their risk profile, source of funds, and expected activity. CDD helps financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering by enabling them to know their customers, monitor their transactions, and report any suspicious or unusual behavior. CDD is also a key requirement of the international standards and best practices for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Guidelines.

The other options are not as effective as CDD, as they are either too narrow or too broad in scope. Ensuring that transaction monitoring systems can identify terrorist financing is important, but it does not address the broader issue of money laundering, which may involve other types of criminal proceeds or activities. Collecting information on beneficial owners and foreign customers is a part of CDD, but it is not sufficient by itself, as it does not cover the risk assessment and ongoing monitoring aspects of CDD. Instituting a policy prohibiting the acceptance of funds intended for terrorist financing is a good practice, but it is not a preventive measure, as it relies on the assumption that the funds are already identified as such, which may not be the case.

References:

Customer Due Diligence - FATF-GAFI.ORG

Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism - Bank for International Settlements

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 36-37.

An effective anti-money laundering training program should include real-life money laundering examples to illustrate the concepts and strategies for detecting and preventing money-laundering activity. Real-life examples can help employees to understand the risks, methods, indicators, and impacts of money laundering, as well as the roles and responsibilities of different staff members in combating it. Real-life examples can also enhance the engagement, retention, and application of the knowledge gained from the training program.

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

The document titled “Anti-Money Laundering Awareness Training” published by ACAMS. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “ACAMS AML General Awareness Training equips employees with knowledge of basic anti-money laundering (AML) principles” and that it is “based on real-life industry scenarios with interactive content to help learning stick”.

The document titled “Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Training” published by LIMRA. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “LIMRA’s AML training program provides training for insurance and securities producers and home office employees” and that it “uses real-life scenarios to help learners understand how to apply AML principles to their everyday work”.

 A startup virtual currency exchange that operates as a money services business (MSB) must comply with the anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and standards applicable to MSBs, such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) in the United States. One of the key requirements for MSBs is to develop and implement an effective AML compliance program that covers the following four pillars: internal controls, independent testing, designated compliance officer, and training12.

Before launching its operations, the startup should consider the following two AML responsibilities that are essential for its compliance program:

A customer onboarding process: The startup should establish a customer identification program (CIP) that verifies the identity of its customers and collects relevant information, such as name, address, date of birth, and identification number12. The startup should also perform customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) for higher-risk customers, such as those who engage in large or frequent transactions, use anonymous or pseudonymous digital wallets, or originate from high-risk jurisdictions34. The startup should also screen its customers against sanctions lists and other watchlists to prevent dealing with prohibited or suspicious entities12.

Transaction limits consistent with risk appetite: The startup should set appropriate transaction limits for its customers based on its risk assessment and risk appetite. Transaction limits can help mitigate the exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as well as comply with the reporting and recordkeeping obligations under the BSA. For example, the startup should report any cash transactions over $10,000 or any suspicious transactions over $2,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)12. The startup should also monitor its customers’ transactions for any unusual or inconsistent patterns or behaviors that may indicate money laundering or other illicit activities34.

References:

1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 6: AML Compliance Program, pp. 139-1461

2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 6: AML Compliance Program, Lesson 6.1: The Four Pillars of an AML Compliance Program3

3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Customer Due Diligence, pp. 87-1061

4: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Customer Due Diligence, Lesson 4.1: Customer Identification Program and Lesson 4.3: Enhanced Due Diligence3

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, financial institutions should obtain senior management approval before establishing new correspondent banking relationships1. This is to ensure that the financial institution has assessed the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the respondent institution and has applied appropriate due diligence measures. The FATF also requires financial institutions to gather sufficient information about the respondent institution, its business activities, its reputation, its supervision, and its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policies and procedures1. Additionally, the FATF recommends that financial institutions document the respective responsibilities of each institution and prevent the use of their accounts by shell banks1.

References:

1: Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services, FATF, 2016

This customer action indicates possible money laundering because it could be a sign of layering, which is the second stage of the money laundering process. Layering involves moving the illicit funds around to create distance and confusion between the source and the destination of the money. Transferring all funds to another bank on the same day of large cash deposits could be an attempt to avoid detection by the bank’s transaction monitoring system or by the authorities. It could also be a way to break the audit trail and obscure the origin of the funds.

The other customer actions are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they could raise some red flags depending on the context and the customer profile. Continually making weekly small cash deposits could be a sign of structuring, which is a technique to avoid reporting requirements by depositing amounts below the threshold. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who receives cash payments from students. Periodically initiating wire transfers to another account owned by a relative could be a sign of funneling, which is a technique to move funds between accounts that are not related to the business or personal activities of the customer. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who supports their family members financially. Opening a savings account and making frequent transfers from the checking account could be a sign of commingling, which is a technique to mix illicit funds with legitimate funds from a legal source. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who wants to save money for future expenses.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, pp. 35-40

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 28-32

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Video 2.2: The Three Stages of Money Laundering

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 311, Answer C

 If an employee of a financial institution is found to have assisted in money laundering or any other criminal activity, the institution should take appropriate disciplinary action and report the employee to the relevant authorities. This is not only a legal obligation, but also a sound compliance practice to protect the institution’s reputation and integrity. Disciplining the employee without informing the authorities would be insufficient and potentially expose the institution to further legal risks. Ignoring the employee’s involvement or requiring additional training for all employees would be ineffective and inappropriate responses.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 121-1221

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 6: AML Compliance Program, pp. 143-1441

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 5.2: International Standards and Best Practices2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 6: AML Compliance Program, Lesson 6.4: Internal Controls2

A comprehensive risk analysis is the first and most important step in developing an effective anti-money laundering program. A risk analysis helps a financial institution identify and assess its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, based on its products, services, customers, geographic locations, and other factors. A risk analysis also enables a financial institution to tailor its policies, procedures, controls, and training to mitigate the specific risks it faces. A risk analysis should be conducted periodically and updated as necessary to reflect changes in the institution’s risk profile.

References:

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 2.1: Risk-Based Approach, p. 29-30

ACAMS Risk Assessment, What is Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment?

How to Conduct an AML Risk Assessment - Assess Key Risk Drivers

The USA PATRIOT Act is a comprehensive legislation that was enacted in 2001 to enhance the powers and tools of the US authorities to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats to the national security and the integrity of the financial system. The USA PATRIOT Act contains several provisions that affect the relationship between US banks and foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the US.

One of these provisions is Section 319, which allows the US authorities to seize the funds of a foreign bank held with a US bank, if the foreign bank refuses to comply with a subpoena or a request for records related to the correspondent account. This provision is intended to prevent foreign banks from using their correspondent accounts in the US to facilitate transactions involving tainted funds, such as proceeds of crime, funds intended to support terrorism, or funds subject to sanctions or asset freezing orders. Section 319 also requires US banks to maintain records of the owners and agents of foreign banks that have correspondent accounts with them, and to terminate such accounts if requested by the US authorities.

Therefore, if a foreign bank maintains a correspondent account in the US, and the US authorities find out that the account has been used to facilitate a transaction involving tainted funds, the US authorities can seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 10

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319, page 55-57

The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, Section III, page 9-10

[The USA PATRI

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution’s risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:

The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution’s anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.

The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution’s anti-money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution’s internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program’s adequacy and effectiveness1.

The program should be sent to the institution’s government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution’s government regulator may request or review the institution’s anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS

 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.

References:

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

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a method to finance terrorism that involves falsifying transaction-related documents, such as invoices, contracts, bills of lading, or customs declarations, to conceal the origin, destination, value, or purpose of illicit funds. TBML can be used to move money, goods, or services to or from sanctioned or high-risk jurisdictions, to evade taxes, duties, or currency controls, to launder proceeds of crime, or to support terrorist activities. TBML can involve over- or under-invoicing, over- or under-shipping, multiple-invoicing, or falsely describing goods or services. TBML can also be linked to other methods of money laundering or terrorist financing, such as bribery, black market peso exchange, or informal value transfer systems.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 4: Trade-Based Money Laundering

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Related to Counterfeiting of Currency, Financial Action Task Force (FATF), page 28

Tracing terrorist finances, INTERPOL

 A key risk indicator associated with terrorism financing is the link between the charity group and a known terrorist group. This indicates that the funds transferred to the charity group may be used to support the terrorist group’s activities, such as recruitment, training, propaganda, or attacks. Charities are often vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers, as they may operate in high-risk areas, have access to large amounts of cash, and enjoy public trust and legitimacy. Therefore, financial institutions (FIs) should conduct due diligence on the charity group, its directors, its beneficiaries, and its sources and uses of funds, and monitor the transactions for any red flags, such as unusual patterns, amounts, or destinations. FIs should also comply with the relevant sanctions and regulatory requirements, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the authorities.

References:

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

2: Mitigating the risks of terrorist financing | Crowe LLP3

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

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, customer service, 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.

References:

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

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.

References: = 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.

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 information exchange 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.

References:

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 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.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, page 1731

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 2872

The three statements from the procedure that are in line with Wolfsberg are:

B. The responsible private banker must establish the identity of a holder of general powers over an account (e.g. a signatory for the account) and, as appropriate, verify that identity. This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.1, which states that the bank will establish the identity of its clients and beneficial owners prior to establishing business relationships with such persons1.

D. The responsible private banker must obtain the necessary documentation establishing the authorized signer’s authority to act on behalf of the account holder or beneficial owner (e.g. a Power of Attorney). This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.3, which states that the bank will obtain the necessary documentation establishing the authority of the authorized signatory to act on behalf of the client or beneficial owner1.

E. If an individual has signing authority over an account but does not act on a professional basis as a manager of funds, the responsible private banker must understand and document the relationship between that authorized signer, the account holder, and, if different, the beneficial owner of the account. This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.4, which states that the bank will understand and document the relationship between the authorized signatory, the client and, if different, the beneficial owner of the account1.

References:

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012)

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.

References:

Basic Information on OFAC and Sanctions

OFAC Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions

Office of Foreign Assets Control — Overview

 The compliance officer should provide a high level summary of the activity and the interactions with law enforcement to the board of directors, as this would be the most appropriate way to escalate the information without compromising the confidentiality of the STR or the ongoing investigation. Providing a copy of the STR or the letter from law enforcement could expose the bank to legal risks or jeopardize the investigation. Informing the regulator to bring it up with the board would not be sufficient, as the compliance officer has the responsibility to report directly to the board on significant compliance issues.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.3: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.3: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board2

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, individuals who violate anti-money laundering laws can face severe consequences, such as imprisonment, fines, asset forfeiture, and sanctions. These penalties can apply not only to the perpetrators of money laundering, but also to the employees, managers, directors, and officers of financial institutions or other entities that fail to comply with their anti-money laundering obligations. Therefore, violations of anti-money laundering laws can pose a significant risk to individuals, both personally and professionally.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 9

ACAMS website, section on CAMS certification

Money Laundering website, article on “The Consequences of Non-Compliance with Anti-Money Laundering Laws”

According to the Basel Committee’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks paper, one of the essential elements of a sound KYC programme is customer identification. This includes obtaining sufficient information to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, the source of funds, and the beneficial ownership and control structure of the customer1. For corporate business entities, this means that a bank needs to have an understanding of the structure of the company, such as its legal form, its ownership, its directors, its line of business, and its geographical locations2. This will help the bank to assess the risk profile of the customer, to verify its identity and legitimacy, and to monitor its transactions for any suspicious activities.

References:

1: Customer due diligence for banks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001, Section III.2 2: General Guide to Account Opening and Customer Identification, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, February 2003, Section 2.2.1

The Egmont Group is a global network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that aims to enhance the capabilities and cooperation of its members in combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. The Egmont Group supports its FIU members by helping them to expand and systematize the exchange of financial intelligence and information, improve expertise and capabilities of personnel, and enable secure communication with one another12. The Egmont Group does not issue due diligence models for financial institutions, as this is the responsibility of national regulators and standard-setting bodies. The Egmont Group does not issue strategic products for law enforcement agencies and FIUs, as this is the role of other international organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The Egmont Group does not expand the ability of FIUs to enforce laws and exchange information globally, as this depends on the legal and operational frameworks of each FIU and the bilateral or multilateral agreements they have with other FIUs.

References:

Egmont Group

Working Groups - Egmont Group

Overview of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units | FinCEN.gov

Egmont Group - Qatar Financial Information Unit

An anti-money laundering officer should coordinate with the human resources department when implementing a new hire screening program. A new hire screening program is a process of conducting background checks and verifying the identity, qualifications, and suitability of prospective employees, especially those who will be involved in the bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program. The human resources department is responsible for managing the recruitment, hiring, and training of employees, and ensuring that they comply with the bank’s policies and procedures. Therefore, the human resources department is the most appropriate partner for the anti-money laundering officer in developing and executing a new hire screening program that meets the bank’s AML standards and regulatory requirements.

The other options are not relevant or necessary for the implementation of a new hire screening program. The internal auditor is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness and adequacy of the bank’s internal controls, including the AML compliance program, but not for screening new hires. The local financial intelligence unit is a government agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates financial information related to money laundering and terrorist financing, but not for screening new hires. The institution’s regulator is the authority that supervises and examines the bank’s compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, including the AML requirements, but not for screening new hires.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 4: Developing an AML/CFT Program 1

FFIEC BSA/AML Manual, Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program, BSA/AML Training 2

AUSTRAC, Employee due diligence 3

The primary international authoritative body that designates sanctions is the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. The UN sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states and aim to maintain or restore international peace and security. The UN sanctions can target individuals, entities, groups, sectors, or countries, and can include measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, trade restrictions, or diplomatic isolation. The UN sanctions are implemented and enforced by the member states, with the assistance of the UN Secretariat and other specialized agencies. The UN sanctions are periodically reviewed and adjusted by the Security Council, based on the reports of the sanctions committees and expert panels.

References:

1: UN Sanctions1

2: UN Charter, Chapter VII2

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

 the compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement investigation, but only after receiving a formal written request that specifies the scope and purpose of the information sought. This is to ensure that the compliance officer complies with the legal and regulatory obligations of the bank, such as confidentiality, privacy, and data protection. The compliance officer should also document the request and the information provided, and report the incident to the senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.

References:

FFIEC BSA/AML Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program - BSA Compliance Officer, section “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.”

Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers, section “Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers”, paragraph 36: “The AML/CFT compliance officer should ensure that the institution cooperates with the competent authorities, including by providing them with all the information they require in a timely manner, in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.”

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer Job Description, section “Responsibilities of an AML Compliance Officer”, bullet point 6: “Cooperate with law enforcement and regulatory bodies as required.”

Economic sanctions are penalties imposed by one or more countries against another country, group, or individual for violating international 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 foreign policy 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.

References:

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

2: How Economic Sanctions Work - Investopedia

 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.

References:

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

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 .

References:

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

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 and communication 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.

References:

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?

Economic sanctions are a tool that governments and multi-national bodies can use to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by imposing restrictions on trade, financial transactions, travel, or other activities with targeted countries, entities, or individuals that are involved or suspected of being involved in WMD programs. Economic sanctions aim to disrupt the supply chains, funding sources, and incentives for developing or acquiring WMDs, as well as to deter and punish any violations of international norms and obligations regarding WMDs. Economic sanctions can be imposed unilaterally by a country or multilaterally by a group of countries or an international organization, such as the United Nations, the European Union, or the Financial Action Task Force.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Preventing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lesson 4.2: Sanctions1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Preventing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Section 4.2: Sanctions2

one of the key roles of FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) is to support the system of mutual evaluation, which is a peer review process that assesses the level of compliance and effectiveness of each member country’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) regime12. FSRBs conduct mutual evaluations in accordance with the FATF’s methodology and standards, and share the results and recommendations with the FATF and other FSRBs3. Mutual evaluations help identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CFT system, and provide a basis for technical assistance and follow-up actions4.

References:

What are the 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)? - Sygna1

FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering2

The Role of FATF Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) in Combating … - IDMerit3

9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - fineksus.com4

Wire transfer requests initiated by phone and internet should be included in the review of the customer’s activity, as they may indicate a higher risk of fraud, identity theft, or money laundering. Phone and internet wire transfers are more vulnerable to cyberattacks, phishing, or social engineering, and may bypass some of the verification and authentication procedures that are applied to in-person or paper-based requests. Therefore, the compliance officer should monitor these requests for any signs of unusual or suspicious activity, such as changes in beneficiary, amount, frequency, or destination of the wires.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 41

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 325

REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS [https://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf] If a financial institution suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are the proceeds of a criminal activity, or are related to terrorist financing, it should be required, by law, to report promptly its suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU). According to the Financial Action Task Force‘s (FATF) Recommendation 20, a suspicious transaction report (STR) or a suspicious activity report (SAR) is filed by a financial institution or, by a concerned citizen, to the local Financial Intelligence Unit if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a transaction is related to criminal activity. [https://aml-cft.net/library/suspicious-transaction-report-str-suspicious-activity-report-sar/]

A financial institution (FI) should exit a relationship when the suspicious conduct of the account holder or the FI’s stated policies and procedures for closing an account warrant such action. A FI has the right and responsibility to terminate a customer relationship that poses an unacceptable level of risk to the FI or violates its AML/CFT program. A FI should have clear and consistent criteria for exiting a relationship, such as the number and severity of SARs filed, the nature and extent of due diligence conducted, the availability and effectiveness of mitigating controls, and the alignment of the customer profile with the FI’s risk appetite. A FI should also document the rationale and process for exiting a relationship, communicate the decision to the customer and relevant stakeholders, and monitor the account until closure.

The reputational risk to the FI posed by closing the account or the request from law enforcement to close the account are not valid reasons for exiting a relationship by themselves. A FI should consider the potential reputational impact of closing an account, but it should not outweigh the legal and regulatory obligations of the FI to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. A FI should also cooperate with law enforcement requests, but it should not automatically close an account based on such requests, as they may interfere with ongoing investigations or intelligence gathering. A FI should exercise its own judgment and discretion in deciding whether to exit a relationship, based on its own policies and procedures and the facts and circumstances of each case.

References:

Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy

De-risking your SARs: Building SAR relationship exit strategies into your AML/CFT program

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

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement request to keep an account open that may be associated with suspicious or criminal activity, it should take the following two steps:

Maintain account records for at least five years after the request expires. This is to ensure that the financial institution can provide evidence of its compliance with the law enforcement request and the applicable anti-money laundering regulations. The five-year retention period is based on the international standard set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and adopted by many jurisdictions12.

Ask for a written request from the law enforcement agency that defines the duration. This is to protect the financial institution from potential liability and to clarify the scope and purpose of the law enforcement request. The written request should specify the time period for which the account should remain open, the reason for the request, the contact information of the law enforcement officer, and the legal authority for the request34.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 57

FATF Recommendation 11, paragraph 2

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 58

Money Laundering website, article on “Law Enforcement Requests to Keep Accounts Open”

https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/requests-law-enforcement-financial-institutions-maintain

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, a financial institution that processes a wire transfer is required to file a suspicious transaction report (STR) in the jurisdiction where it is located, if it detects any red flags or indicators of money laundering, terrorism financing, or other financial crimes. The financial institution does not need to file an STR in the jurisdictions of the originator or the beneficiary of the wire transfer, unless it has a branch or a subsidiary there. Therefore, the correct answer is A. The transaction in Country A.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, Chapter 4: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section: Wire Transfers, pp. 161-162.

The Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3MLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. It was adopted in 2005 and repealed by the Fourth European Union Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) in 2015. The 3MLD applies to a range of entities that are considered to be exposed to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Financial institutions, which include credit institutions, financial intermediaries, insurance companies, investment firms, and payment service providers.

Casinos, which include both online and offline gambling services that involve wagering a stake with monetary value.

Real estate agents, which include both natural and legal persons that act as intermediaries in the buying and selling of real property or rights over it.

The 3MLD requires these entities to implement a number of measures to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Conducting customer due diligence, which involves identifying and verifying the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and applying enhanced or simplified measures depending on the level of risk.

Keeping records of customer and transaction data for at least five years after the end of the business relationship or the execution of the transaction.

Reporting suspicious transactions or activities to the competent authorities without delay and without tipping off the customer.

Establishing internal policies, procedures, and controls to ensure compliance with the 3MLD, and providing adequate training and awareness to staff.

Cooperating with the relevant supervisory and regulatory authorities and financial intelligence units.

The 3MLD does not apply to defense attorneys, as they are not considered to be obliged entities under the directive. However, the 3MLD does apply to other legal professionals, such as notaries, lawyers, and accountants, when they perform certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as:

Buying and selling of real property or business entities

Managing of client money, securities, or other assets

Opening or managing bank, savings, or securities accounts

Organizing contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies

Creating, operating, or managing trusts, companies, foundations, or similar structures

References:

THE THIRD EU DIRECTIVE ON MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING, page 11-12

Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, page 1

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 11

V

 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.”

purchasing a low volume of chips with cash and turning them in for a casino check is a common technique of money laundering in casinos. This method allows the launderer to convert “dirty” money into physical casino chips, which are then played with for a short while, and then cashed out as “clean” money in the form of a check. This way, the launderer can avoid the reporting requirements and the traceability of cash transactions.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

Understanding Money Laundering in Casinos | ComplyAdvantage2

Casino Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators - Alessa3

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, keep records 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.

References:

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 bank teller should not provide any information to the police officer without consulting the compliance officer first. The compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank follows the applicable laws and regulations regarding customer privacy, data protection, and anti-money laundering. The compliance officer can verify the authenticity and validity of the request, determine the appropriate response, and obtain any necessary approvals or authorizations before releasing any information. The bank teller should not reject the request outright, as this could be seen as uncooperative or obstructive. The bank teller should also not provide the information after management approval, as this could bypass the compliance officer’s role and expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks.

References:

Bank Records and Financial Privacy Laws - FindLaw1

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS2

What is the Difference Between Smurfing and Structuring?3

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.

References:

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

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that facilitates and prompts the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences1. The Egmont Group suggests that one of the core objectives that would lead to an effective national FIU is to have absolute trust amongst national and international stakeholders before sensitive information will be exchanged with confidence2. This means that the FIU should establish and maintain a high level of credibility, professionalism, and integrity in its operations, and ensure that the information it receives and disseminates is protected and used appropriately. The FIU should also comply with the Egmont Group’s principles and standards for information exchange, and foster a culture of mutual trust and cooperation with other FIUs and relevant authorities3.

The other three options are incorrect because:

The FIU must operate from physically separated premises from other law enforcement agencies and government offices is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and be free from undue influence or interference, it does not necessarily have to be physically separated from other agencies or offices. The FIU may be located within the judicial, law enforcement, administrative, or hybrid model, depending on the country’s legal and institutional framework4.

The FIU meets the Egmont Group assessment criteria is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While meeting the Egmont Group assessment criteria is a requirement for becoming and remaining a member of the Egmont Group, it is not an objective in itself. The assessment criteria are based on the FATF recommendations and the Egmont Group’s own documents, and they serve as a benchmark for evaluating the FIU’s compliance and effectiveness5.

The FIU must be able to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU may contribute to the prevention and detection of corruption, as well as the recovery of illicit assets, by analyzing and sharing financial intelligence, it is not the sole or primary responsibility of the FIU to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country. This is a broader and more complex goal that involves multiple actors and factors, such as political will, legal framework, institutional capacity, civil society, media, and international cooperation.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 64 2: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 2 3: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 3-4 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 67 5: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Support and Compliance Process, June 2013, [6], p. 3-4 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 91-92

 The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system1. The FATF identifies jurisdictions with serious strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering / counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes and issues public statements to warn the international community of the risks emanating from these jurisdictions2. These jurisdictions are also known as high-risk jurisdictions subject to a call for action, or the “black list” in external sources2. The FATF urges its members and all other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures to protect themselves from the money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by these jurisdictions2. Counter-measures are enhanced due diligence or restrictive measures that go beyond the normal AML/CFT requirements, such as requiring additional information or documentation, rejecting transactions, restricting business relationships, or terminating correspondent banking relationships3. The FATF also provides guidance on the types and levels of counter-measures that may be appropriate, depending on the specific risks and circumstances of each jurisdiction3.

References:

1: What is the FATF? | FATF

2: High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action | FATF

3: Guidance on Counter Proliferation Financing - The Implementation of Financial Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions to Counter the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction | FATF

This potential action is authorized by Section 319 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which allows the U.S. government to seize funds from a foreign bank’s correspondent account in the U.S. if the foreign bank refuses to cooperate with a request for records relating to an investigation of money laundering or terrorist financing. The U.S. government can seize an amount equal to the funds in the account of the target of the investigation, regardless of whether those funds are actually in the correspondent account. In this case, the U.S. government can seize $1 million from Bank A’s correspondent account in the U.S. because Bank A holds $1 million in the account of the WTS, which is the target of the forfeiture action.

The other potential actions are not authorized by the USA PATRIOT ACT or other U.S. laws. The U.S. government cannot seize Bank A’s entire $5 million correspondent account in the U.S. because that would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account and would violate the principle of proportionality. The U.S. government cannot seize the WTS’s $1 million account at the non-U.S. branch of Bank A because that would require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction where the branch is located, which may not be forthcoming. The U.S. government cannot seize $5 million from the non-U.S. branch of Bank A where the WTS’s account is located because that would also require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction and would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: International Standards and Global Initiatives, pp. 67-68

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 54-55

How Does the Patriot Act Affect Criminal Investigations? | Nolo, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts

The USA PATRIOT Act at 20: Sneak and Peek Searches - CRS Reports, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the common methods of money laundering and terrorist financing is to structure transactions to avoid reporting or record keeping requirements. Structuring involves breaking down a large amount of cash into smaller transactions that fall below a specified threshold, or using different accounts, agents, locations, or days to conduct the transactions. Therefore, the fact that the two customers remit the same amount of funds, $2,500, each week to the same recipient in a high-risk country is a red flag for possible money laundering or terrorist financing activity, as it suggests that they are trying to evade the record keeping threshold of $3,000 for money transmitters in the United States12.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 27

FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags1

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage2

 A key reason why a FI conducts an enterprise-wide AML risk assessment is to assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks and ensure there are adequate controls to mitigate those risks. An enterprise-wide AML risk assessment allows the FI to identify and appropriately manage the ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks within its banking operations. It also helps the FI to establish global AML control standards and determine the effectiveness of its AML risk management program, including internal preventive and detective controls. By understanding its risk profile, the FI can better apply appropriate risk management processes to the BSA/AML compliance program to mitigate and manage risk and comply with BSA regulatory requirements. The BSA/AML risk assessment should provide a comprehensive analysis of the FI’s ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks, and should be documented in writing and communicated to all relevant stakeholders.

References:

1: Enterprise Wide AML, CTF, Sanctions Risk Assessment (EWRA … - Eloquens2

3: BSA/AML Risk Assessment - FFIEC BSA/AML3

2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination2

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.

References:

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

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 39.

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.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions are extraterritorial in nature, meaning that they apply beyond the national borders of the United States. OFAC sanctions are intended to restrict transactions and the movement of assets between the U.S. and designated persons and organizations. These sanctions are imposed to disrupt the economic and financial relations between foreign countries and designated persons, organizations, or countries. These sanctions include prohibiting transactions, requiring the blocking of assets, and implementing targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions.

 The account officer has violated the principle of confidentiality by informing the customer about the legal request from law enforcement. This could amount to tipping off, which is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. Tipping off could jeopardize the investigation, compromise evidence, and alert other potential suspects. The account officer should not discuss any details of the investigation with the customer, nor should he meet with the customer to do so. He should also report his actions to his manager and compliance department, and cooperate with law enforcement as required.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Lesson 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Section 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing, pp. 135-136

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Task 4.3: Maintain confidentiality of the investigation, p. 18

The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The FATF conducts mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regimes1.

The FATF defines effectiveness as "the extent to which a country’s AML/CFT regime is achieving the defined outcomes of an effective regime that allows them to mitigate their risks and threats of ML/TF"2. The FATF assesses effectiveness based on 11 immediate outcomes, which are grouped into three thematic goals: financial system integrity, legal system and operational issues, and international cooperation2.

One of the immediate outcomes under the financial system integrity goal is that “FIs adequately apply preventive measures commensurate with their risks, and report suspicious transactions” (IO.4)2. This outcome measures how well FIs implement the FATF Recommendations on customer due diligence, record-keeping, internal controls, risk assessment, and suspicious transaction reporting. These preventive measures are essential for FIs to identify and mitigate the risks of being misused for money laundering or terrorist financing, and to provide useful information to the authorities for investigation and prosecution2.

Therefore, the correct answer is D. FIs adequately apply preventive measures, as this is one of the FATF characteristics used to assess a country’s effectiveness of its AML regime.

References:

FATF Methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems

An effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing

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.

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.

References:

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

 The correct answer is C because the European Union Money Laundering Directives require lawyers and other independent legal professionals to report suspicious transactions to the competent authority when they are involved in certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as creating or managing companies, trusts, or other legal arrangements. The directives also provide that the obligation to report overrides any professional secrecy or confidentiality rules, except when the lawyer is ascertaining the legal position of the client or representing the client in legal proceedings or in connection with such proceedings. Therefore, the lawyer in this scenario should report the activity as suspicious to the competent authority, as creating a financial holding company for the client falls within the scope of the reporting obligation and does not qualify for the exemption12

References: =

1: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 141

2: Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, Article 33 and 34

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.

References:

A Guide to Customer Due Diligence for Financial Institutions

Customer Due Diligence Guide: Main Requirements, Best Practices & Checklist

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Issues New Frequently Asked Questions on Customer Due Diligence Requirements

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide 6th Edition

--- Wire transfers are one of the most common methods of moving funds across borders and jurisdictions, and therefore pose a high risk of violating OFAC sanctions. A bank’s OFAC sanctions screening audit program should include a test to review the wire transfer screening processes to ensure that potential name hits are investigated promptly and appropriately, and that any blocked or rejected transactions are reported to OFAC in a timely manner. This test would help the bank to assess the effectiveness of its screening system, identify any gaps or weaknesses, and demonstrate its compliance with OFAC regulations.

References:

A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments1, page 4, section 4: Testing and Auditing

OFAC Framework for Sanctions Compliance Programs2, page 2, section 4: Testing and Auditing

OFAC Sanctions List Search Tool3

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), the financial institution (Fl) should take the following actions:

A. Review the client's activity, determine if suspicious activity exists, and report accordingly. The Fl should assess the risk of the situation and determine if there is any suspicious activity that needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities. This would involve conducting a review of the client's account activity and transactions to determine if there are any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing.

D. Inform local LEA and regulator of the request for awareness. The Fl should inform the local law enforcement agency and regulator of the request from the foreign jurisdiction to raise awareness of the situation and determine if any further actions need to be taken.

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 resold or 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].

This includes civil monetary penalties, criminal prosecution, and other enforcement actions. These penalties can be enforced against foreign individuals, regardless of whether the individual is located within the US or abroad. Additionally, OFAC has the authority to impose sanctions on foreign countries and foreign individuals, including individuals and entities located outside of the US.

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 10 requires financial institutions to identify and verify the identity of their customers, including legal persons and arrangements, using reliable and independent sources. This includes verifying the legal existence and structure of the legal entity, such as by obtaining a certificate of incorporation, a partnership agreement, or a trust deed. Additionally, financial institutions should identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of the legal entity, such as by obtaining information on the natural persons who ultimately own or control the entity, or who exercise effective control over the entity.

The other options are not consistent with the FATF 40 Recommendations. Verifying the financial status of the legal entity, or the entity’s other banking relations, is not a requirement for identification purposes, although it may be relevant for risk assessment or due diligence purposes. Verifying a person purporting to act on behalf of the legal entity is also not sufficient, as the person may not be authorized or may not disclose the true identity or beneficial ownership of the entity. Verifying funds or trusts maintained by terrorists is not a specific identification requirement, but rather a general obligation to comply with targeted financial sanctions and freeze the assets of designated persons or entities.

References:

FATF 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 10, Interpretive Note to Recommendation 10, pages 14-18.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1, page 77.

A customer who is the brother of a prominent member of a foreign judiciary is considered a politically exposed person (PEP) or a family member of a PEP. PEPs are individuals who hold or have held positions of public trust or influence in a foreign country, such as heads of state, senior politicians, high-ranking military officers, judges, or executives of state-owned enterprises. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their access to public funds, influence over policy decisions, or connections to other powerful individuals. Therefore, financial institutions are required to perform enhanced due diligence (EDD) on PEPs and their family members, as well as monitor their transactions and activities more closely. EDD is a set of additional measures that go beyond the standard customer due diligence (CDD) to obtain more information about the customer, such as their source of wealth, source of funds, expected account activity, business relationships, and reputation. EDD also involves conducting ongoing reviews and updating the customer risk profile regularly. EDD helps the financial institution to mitigate the risks associated with PEPs and detect any signs of money laundering or other illicit activities.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide1, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pages 51-52

FATF Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons2, pages 9-10, 13-14, 17-18

Wolfsberg Group Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons3, pages 2-3, 6-7