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

These designated nonfinancial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) include — casinos when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold………. — real estate agents when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties; — dealers in precious metals and stones when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold; — lawyers, notaries and independent legal professionals and accountants when they prepare or carry out transactions for clients concerning buying and selling real estate; …….; and — trust and company service providers when they prepare or carry out transactions for a client concerning certain activities ….

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

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

References:

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

2: Beneficial Ownership Meaning and Regulation, Investopedia, 2022

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

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

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

The 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

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a method of disguising and moving illicit funds through the international trade system. Criminals often manipulate various aspects of trade transactions, such as pricing, quantity, documentation, and commodity type, to transfer value and obscure the source of funds. Some of the common red flags that may indicate TBML are:

The transaction involves the use of front (or shell) companies: Front or shell companies are entities that have no physical presence, no employees, and no business activity, but are used to facilitate money laundering. They often have vague or generic names, are registered in secrecy jurisdictions, and have no available ownership information. In this case, ABC Holdings Ltd. and Sunrise Holdings Ltd. could be front or shell companies that are used to launder money through trade transactions.

The type of commodity being shipped appears inconsistent with the exporter or importer’s regular business activities: Criminals may use commodities that are unrelated to their core business or that have low correlation with the market price to launder money. They may also use commodities that are difficult to value, verify, or trace, such as precious metals, gems, art, or antiquities. In this case, the automotive parts company and the silk flower supplier seem to have no logical connection, and the value of the silk flowers may be inflated or deflated to transfer funds.

References:

Trade-Based Money Laundering: Risk Indicators - Financial Action Task Force, pp. 9-10, 14-15

Identifying TBML: 8 Trade-Based Money Laundering Red Flags - Alessa, pp. 1-2

FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, p. 7

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, p. 1

According to the USA PATRIOT Act, the four minimum elements required for an anti-money laundering program for a foreign bank with branches in the United States are:

An ongoing employee training program. This is to ensure that the employees are aware of the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, the legal and regulatory requirements, the red flags and indicators of suspicious activity, and their roles and responsibilities in detecting and reporting money laundering and terrorist financing.

The designation of a compliance officer. This is to ensure that there is a person responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the anti-money laundering program, ensuring compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, and liaising with the regulators and law enforcement agencies.

An independent audit function to test the program. This is to ensure that the anti-money laundering program is periodically reviewed and evaluated by an independent and qualified auditor, who can assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the program, identify any weaknesses or deficiencies, and recommend corrective actions or improvements.

The development of internal policies, procedures, and controls. This is to ensure that the foreign bank has a written and documented anti-money laundering program that establishes the standards, guidelines, and processes for preventing, detecting, and reporting money laundering and terrorist financing, and that the program is consistent with the risk profile and business activities of the foreign bank.

The development of a Know Your Customer program is not a minimum element required under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it is a recommended best practice and may be required by other laws or regulations.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pages 141-142

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.2, Skill 2.2.1

Anti-Money Laundering Initiatives Under the USA Patriot Act, FindLaw, March 2008

[The U.S. PATRIOT Act and AML: What You Need to Know], Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, June 2020

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

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

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

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

References:

1: Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422 2: 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), p. 47

UESTION NO: 86

Findings from a regulatory examination report states that the job descriptions of personnel outside of the

compliance department do not include references to anti-money laundering responsibilities.

Which action should the firm take?

A. Update all job descriptions to include anti-money laundering responsibilities

B. Respond that only compliance personnel have anti-money laundering responsibilities

C. Send an email to all staff stating that personnel must observe the anti-money laundering policy

D. Reply that a description of anti-money laundering responsibilities is included in the annual training

Answer: A

According to the ACAMS Study Guide, one of the essential elements of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is to assign clear roles and responsibilities to all staff members, regardless of their position or department1. This ensures that everyone is aware of their obligations and expectations in relation to AML compliance, and that they receive appropriate training and guidance. Therefore, the firm should update all job descriptions to include references to AML responsibilities, such as identifying and reporting suspicious activity, conducting customer due diligence, and adhering to AML policies and procedures.

The other options are not sufficient or correct, because:

B. Responding that only compliance personnel have AML responsibilities is incorrect, because AML compliance is not only the responsibility of the compliance department, but of the entire organization1. All staff members should be involved in the AML program and contribute to its effectiveness.

C. Sending an email to all staff stating that personnel must observe the AML policy is not sufficient, because it does not specify what the AML policy entails, or how it applies to different roles and functions. An email is also not a permanent or formal way of communicating AML responsibilities, and it may not reach all staff members or be taken seriously.

D. Replying that a description of AML responsibilities is included in the annual training is not sufficient, because it does not address the issue of the job descriptions, which should reflect the AML responsibilities of each position. Moreover, annual training may not be frequent or comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of AML compliance, and it may not be tailored to the specific needs and risks of each role or department.

References:

1: ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, page 49.

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

Section 313 of the USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S. financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administrating or managing correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks. A foreign shell bank is a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. To ensure compliance with this prohibition, U.S. financial institutions must obtain from each foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account the identity of each owner of the foreign bank and the nature and extent of each owner’s ownership interest. This information must be updated within 30 days of any change.

References:

USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov, Section 313

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street

 the account officer should avoid disclosing any details of the investigation to the customer, as this could compromise the integrity of the law enforcement inquiry, or even constitute tipping off, which is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions12. The account officer should only inform the customer that a legal request has been made, and that the bank is obliged to comply with it, without revealing the nature or scope of the request3. The account officer should also document the communication with the customer, and report it to the appropriate internal authority, such as the compliance officer or the legal department4.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 151-152. 2: Tipping Off: What It Is and How to Avoid It, ACAMS Today, March 2019. 3: How to Handle Law Enforcement Requests, ACAMS Webinar, June 2018. 4: Best Practices for Responding to Law Enforcement Inquiries, ACAMS White Paper, October 2017.

 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

According to the Basel Committee’s paper on Customer Due Diligence for Banks1, banks should review their existing customer relationships on a regular basis, especially for higher risk categories of customers or business relationships. This includes identifying whether the customer or the beneficial owner is a PEP, either at the account opening stage or later, as a result of a change in the customer’s circumstances or profile. The paper also states that banks should apply a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate level and type of due diligence depending on the risk profile of the customer or the beneficial owner.

References:

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 20011

FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22), June 20132

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4

Money laundering can have negative effects on a country’s currencies and interest rates, as it distorts the allocation of resources and the demand and supply of money. According to the IMF1, money laundering can also adversely affect currencies and interest rates as launderers reinvest funds where their schemes are less likely to be detected, rather than where rates of return are higher. This can create artificial fluctuations and imbalances in the exchange and interest rates, and undermine the effectiveness of monetary policy. For example, if launderers invest in low-yield assets such as government bonds or real estate, they may drive up the prices and lower the yields of these assets, while reducing the availability of funds for more productive investments. This can also affect the inflation and growth prospects of the country.

References:

1: Macroeconomic Implications of Money Laundering by Peter J. Quirk, IMF Working Paper, 1996

2: Understanding Money Laundering: How It Impacts the Global Economy by Tookitaki, 2019

3: Money Laundering by U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2021

4: The Consequences of Money Laundering and Financial Crime by John McDowell and Gary Novis, U.S. Department of State, 2001

Money laundering through real estate is a common method of disguising the source and ownership of illicit funds. Real estate transactions often involve large amounts of money, complex legal structures, and cross-border transfers, which can obscure the true nature and origin of the funds. The new business customer in this scenario raises several red flags that warrant enhanced due diligence, such as:

The business was established five years ago but has a vague website and no physical presence in the state where it is registered.

One of the principals has an international phone number and lives abroad, which could indicate a foreign shell company or a politically exposed person.

The other principal works out of a recreational vehicle, which could suggest a lack of legitimate business activity or income.

The business claims to be a real estate business, but does not provide any details about its projects, clients, or partners.

These factors suggest that the business may be involved in money laundering through real estate, either by purchasing properties with illicit funds, using properties to generate illegal income, or selling properties to launder money. Therefore, the financial institution should conduct enhanced due diligence to verify the identity, background, and source of funds of the business and its principals, as well as the purpose and nature of the account relationship.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, pp. 46-47

Enhanced Due Diligence in Construction and Real Estate, by James Swenson, Ethixbase 360

Due Diligence & Legal Considerations in Commercial Real Estate, by Justia

Online banking is vulnerable to all three stages of money laundering, namely placement, layering, and integration, because it allows the movement of funds across different accounts, jurisdictions, and institutions with speed, anonymity, and convenience. Online banking can facilitate the following money laundering methods:

Placement: The initial stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are introduced into the financial system. Online banking can enable placement by allowing the deposit of cash or checks through ATMs, mobile devices, or remote deposit capture, or the transfer of funds from prepaid cards, digital wallets, or cryptocurrencies to bank accounts.

Layering: The second stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are moved, disguised, or concealed to obscure their origin and ownership. Online banking can enable layering by allowing the transfer of funds between multiple accounts, often in different jurisdictions or currencies, or the purchase of financial products or services, such as money orders, wire transfers, or online gambling, that create complex transaction trails.

Integration: The final stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate economy as apparently legal income or assets. Online banking can enable integration by allowing the transfer of funds to legitimate businesses, investments, or charities, or the purchase of goods or services, such as real estate, luxury items, or travel, that provide a cover for the source of funds.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.1: The Three Stages of Money Laundering

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.1: The Three Stages of Money Laundering, pp. 29-34

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.1: The Three Stages of Money Laundering, Slides 9-13

Wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and large cash deposits from a high-risk jurisdiction are two red flags that may indicate money laundering. These activities suggest that the customer is trying to move funds from or to a country that has weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that is known to be a source or destination of illicit funds12. Wire transfers can also be used to obscure the origin or destination of the funds, or to layer transactions through multiple accounts or intermediaries3. Large cash deposits can indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the reporting or record-keeping requirements that apply to cash transactions, or that the customer is dealing with proceeds from illegal activities45. The other two options are not necessarily red flags, as the bank may have legitimate reasons to allow cash deposits, and the client may reside in a high-risk jurisdiction for legitimate reasons.

References: 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Geographic Concerns, 6; 2: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators?, ComplyAdvantage, 5; 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Transaction Has Unusual Features, 6; 4: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Unusual Source of Funds, 6; 5: Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, High Speed Training, 8.

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

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

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

References:

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

Alternative remittance, also known as underground banking or informal value transfer systems, is a method of transferring money or value without using formal financial institutions or channels. It is often used by migrant workers, refugees, or people who lack access to formal banking services. However, it can also be exploited by criminals and terrorists to move funds across borders without detection or regulation. The Wolfsberg Group, a group of leading international banks that promotes best practices in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, cited alternative remittance as one of the sectors and activities that are widely used for the financing of terrorism in its Statement on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Wolfsberg Group recommended that financial institutions apply enhanced and appropriate due diligence to customers engaged in alternative remittance and report any suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities.

References:

Wolfsberg Group (2002). Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing1

Pieth, M. (ed.) (2002). Financing Terrorism. Springer, Dordrecht2

ACAMS (2020). CAMS Certification Package (6th Edition)3

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 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

According to the FATF Recommendations, the competent authority that should directly receive suspicious or unusual transaction reports is the financial intelligence unit (FIU). The FIU is a central, national agency responsible for receiving, analyzing and disseminating information related to money laundering and terrorist financing. The FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and should be able to exchange information with other domestic and foreign authorities. The FIU should also provide feedback to the reporting entities on the use and value of their reports.

References: =

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

FATF Recommendations, Recommendation 29: Financial Intelligence Units

http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf

According to the BSA/AML Manual1, a financial institution is required to file a SAR for any transaction conducted or attempted by, at, or through the institution that involves or aggregates at least $5,000 in funds or other assets, and the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part): (a) involves funds derived from illegal activity or is intended or conducted in order to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity; (b) is designed to evade any requirements of the BSA or its implementing regulations; © has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage, and the institution knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction; or (d) involves use of the institution to facilitate criminal activity. In this case, Bank A is the institution that processes the wire transfer and deems it suspicious, based on its own assessment of the transaction and the customer. Therefore, Bank A is responsible for filing a SAR for the transaction in Country A, where it is located and where the transaction takes place. Bank A does not need to file a SAR for the transaction in Country B or Country C, as it does not have jurisdiction or authority over those countries or the other banks involved. However, Bank A may share information about the suspicious transaction with Bank B or Bank C, subject to certain conditions and limitations, as described in the BSA/AML Manual1.

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

From Microsoft Start Partners

Another simpler way of looking at the problem is by seeing this case as a Correspondent Banking relationship:

-A is the primary correspondent bank.

-B is the respondent bank.

-C is the receiving bank (of the wire transfer).

Since A is conducting the transaction on behalf of B's customer via the correspondent relationship deemed suspicious, it is the transaction in Country A by the correspondent bank that files the STR. Also, per the regular process, it is on the transaction, not the bank, that the STR is filed against.

The USA PATRIOT Act imposes several requirements on U.S. financial institutions when dealing with foreign financial institutions, especially those that pose a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Two of these requirements are:

Performing enhanced due diligence on shell banks: A shell bank is a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts are not being used by shell banks indirectly12.

Performing due diligence on correspondent accounts: A correspondent account is an account established by a financial institution to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of, or handle other financial transactions for a foreign financial institution. The USA PATRIOT Act requires U.S. financial institutions to collect and verify certain information about the foreign financial institution, such as its ownership, licensing, and anti-money laundering policies, and to assess the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing associated with the correspondent account13.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pages 82-84

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, Candidate Handbook, page 14

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.4: Correspondent Banking and Money Laundering Risks

 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

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.

A money remittance business will most likely attract money launderers because it deals primarily in cash transactions, engages in international transactions, and conducts transactions for walk-in customers. These factors make money remittance businesses vulnerable to money laundering risks, such as:

Cash transactions: Cash is the preferred medium of exchange for money launderers, as it is anonymous, untraceable, and easily convertible. Money remittance businesses often deal with large amounts of cash, which can be used to place, layer, or integrate illicit funds into the financial system. Cash transactions also pose challenges for customer identification, record keeping, and transaction monitoring.

International transactions: Money remittance businesses facilitate cross-border transfers of funds, which can be used to move illicit funds from one jurisdiction to another, or to obscure the origin, destination, or purpose of the funds. International transactions also involve exposure to different legal, regulatory, and cultural environments, which may create inconsistencies or gaps in anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) standards and practices.

Walk-in customers: Money remittance businesses often serve walk-in customers, who may not have an established relationship with the business, or who may use false or incomplete identification documents. Walk-in customers also increase the volume and complexity of transactions, which may make it difficult to detect suspicious or unusual activity, or to apply risk-based due diligence measures.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector, pp. 37-38

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Section 2.3: Money Laundering Risks and Methods by Sector, Slide 16

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

One of the methods that FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) use to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions is to conduct regional-level research and analysis of the methods and trends used by criminals and terrorists to exploit the vulnerabilities of the financial system. This research and analysis is done using the standards and templates developed by the FATF for its typologies reports, which are documents that describe the common features, techniques, and patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing activities. By producing their own typologies reports, FSRBs can identify the specific risks and challenges faced by their member countries and jurisdictions, and provide guidance and recommendations on how to mitigate them.

References:

What are the 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)? - Sygna, What are FATF and FSRB typologies?

FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, What are the main duties of FSRBs?

Financial Action Task Force - Wikipedia, Typologies.

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.

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

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, a U.S. bank that maintains a correspondent account for a foreign bank operating under an offshore license must obtain from the foreign bank the name and address of a person residing in the United States who is authorized to accept service of legal process for records related to the correspondent account1. This requirement is intended to facilitate the U.S. authorities’ access to information and records regarding the correspondent account and its underlying transactions, especially in cases where the foreign bank is located in a jurisdiction that does not cooperate with U.S. law enforcement or regulatory requests2.

References:

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)(2)(A)1

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pp. 151-152

Art and Antiquities: Conduits for Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Why Fight the Antiquities Trade?

More recently, groups like Daesh (Islamic State [IS]), al-Qaida, the Taliban and their affiliates have been engaged in ****cultural racketeering and terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, converting patrimony into cash for weapons and troops****.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm17427.doc.htm

As Terrorists Diversify Fundraising Tactics, Greater Efforts Needed to Shut Down Illicit Channels, Secretary-General Tells Finance Ministers’ Meeting

Terrorists continue to adapt their tactics and diversify their funding sources. Today, Da’esh runs a multi-million-dollar economy in territories under its control. Da’esh terrorists raise money through the oil trade, extortion, undetected cash couriers, kidnapping for ransom, trafficking of humans and arms and racketeering. They loot and sell precious cultural property, shamelessly profiting from the destruction of humanity’s common heritage.

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

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

According to the ACAMS study guide1, some of the common red flags for money laundering or financing terrorism are:

Customers who provide insufficient or suspicious information, such as unusual or unverifiable identification documents, different taxpayer identification numbers, or vague or inconsistent information about their business or source of funds.

Transactions that have unusual features, such as large cash payments, unexplained payments from a third party, use of multiple or foreign accounts, complex or illogical transactions, or transactions that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or expected behavior.

Geographic concerns, such as transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions, offshore financial centers, secrecy havens, or countries subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Ultimate beneficial ownership that is unclear, such as customers who use shell companies, trusts, or other legal entities to obscure their identity or the identity of the true owners or controllers of the funds or assets.

In this scenario, two red flags that could indicate money laundering or financing terrorism are:

B. The guarantor company’s ownership structure is overly complex. This could be an attempt to hide the true source or destination of the funds, or to evade regulatory or law enforcement scrutiny. The use of a trust formed in a Caribbean island and a holding company based in a European secrecy haven could also indicate geographic concerns, as these jurisdictions are known for their low transparency and high confidentiality.

D. The ultimate beneficial owner is a young lady who has gained her wealth through a small business. This could be a case of false or misleading information, as the source of funds is not commensurate with the size or nature of the transaction. The fitness studio business could be a front or a cover for illicit activities, or the young lady could be a nominee or a straw man for the real owner or beneficiary.

References: = 1 ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination: Sixth Edition. Miami, FL: ACAMS.

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

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

References:

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

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

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.

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

References:

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

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

A corporate account opened on behalf of several beneficial owners is a red flag because it may indicate an attempt to conceal the identity or source of funds of the ultimate beneficiaries1. The customer’s stated investment goal of long-term investment is not reflective of the account activity, which involves frequent and large transfers, currency exchanges, and account depletion within a short period of time. This discrepancy may suggest that the customer is using the account for money laundering or other illicit purposes2.

References: = 1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3, Lesson 4, Topic: Corporate Accounts 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3, Lesson 4, Topic: Customer Profile and Account Activity

The decision of whether or not to file a suspicious transaction report (also known as a suspicious activity report or SAR in the United States) often involves weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors arising from the research conducted during the investigative process. The final decision should be documented and supported by the reasoning that was used to make the determination. The transaction has already been investigated which led to the requesting of the document. The document checked out and the question did not specify the document was suspicious, therefore we can conclude an STR does not need to be completed and thus should move to document the reason why an STR wasn't completed.

 A significant reduction in suspicious transaction report (STR) filings at a particular branch could indicate that the branch is not properly identifying and reporting suspicious activities, or that the branch is experiencing a change in customer behavior or risk profile. Therefore, the most appropriate action for an anti-money laundering specialist is to review the branch exception reports, which are reports that highlight transactions or activities that deviate from the expected or normal patterns, based on the customer profiles and risk assessments. By reviewing the branch exception reports, the specialist can determine whether there are any changes in activity that warrant further investigation or reporting, or whether there are any gaps or weaknesses in the branch’s compliance program or procedures.

The other options are not as appropriate as reviewing the branch exception reports, as they do not directly address the issue of suspicious activity reporting. Placing the branch on the watchlist may be a subsequent action, but it does not provide immediate insight into the reason for the reduction in STR filings. Analyzing the branch activity reports may show whether there has been a decrease in branch activity, but it does not explain why the activity has decreased, or whether the remaining activity is suspicious or not. Reviewing the staff records may reveal whether inexperienced personnel are in critical positions without appropriate training, but it does not account for other factors that may affect the branch’s compliance performance, such as management oversight, internal controls, or customer risk.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 361; ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 12; What Is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? Triggers and Filing3; Reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC4.

The correct answer is C. Wires received in large, even dollar amounts are a suspicious behavior, as they may indicate an attempt to avoid reporting thresholds or to conceal the source of funds. Large and round numbers are often used by money launderers to simplify calculations or to avoid arousing suspicion12. The other options are not necessarily suspicious, as they may reflect the normal business operations of a wholesale auto business that ships vehicles internationally. The dock shipping receipts match the vehicles (A), vehicles are regularly shipped internationally (B), and account debits are payable to transport companies (D) are all plausible and legitimate activities for such a business.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course3, Module 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 2: Methods of Money Laundering

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 3.2: Methods of Money Laundering, pp. 79-80

 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.

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), the bank’s anti-money laundering officer is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of the bank’s anti-money laundering program, which includes reporting and escalating suspicious activities involving PEPs. The anti-money laundering officer should be informed of any unusual or potentially illicit transactions involving PEPs, and decide on the appropriate course of action, such as filing additional reports, conducting enhanced due diligence, or terminating the relationship with the PEP. The other options are not correct because they are either not directly involved in the anti-money laundering program, or not the appropriate authority to contact in this situation.

References: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 77-78. 123456789

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

 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

According to the ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 184, “The decision to close an account should be made in consultation with the institution’s legal counsel and AML compliance officer, and in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures.” Closing an account may not always be the best option, as it may trigger the customer’s suspicion, interfere with law enforcement investigations, or expose the institution to legal risks. Therefore, the institution should carefully weigh the pros and cons of closing an account, and follow its own internal guidelines.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 184

What steps should the institution take? - Exam4Training

Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) / Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) | AML-CFT

Before sharing customer records within the same jurisdiction, an FI should consider the legal and regulatory framework that governs the protection of personal data and the disclosure of client information. Different jurisdictions may have different laws and rules regarding the privacy and confidentiality of customer data, the consent and notification requirements for data sharing, the purposes and scope of data sharing, and the safeguards and accountability measures for data protection. An FI should ensure that it complies with the applicable restrictions and obligations when sharing customer records within the same jurisdiction, and that it does not violate the rights and expectations of its customers.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 83

CAMS Dumps Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 352, page 8

CAMS Dumps Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 352, page 8

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.

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 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

 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

 New business products should be evaluated for AML concerns before they are launched into the market. This is because new products may introduce new risks or vulnerabilities that could be exploited by money launderers or terrorist financiers. By conducting a pre-launch assessment, a financial institution can identify and mitigate these risks, design appropriate controls and procedures, and ensure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. A pre-launch assessment can also help a financial institution to align its AML strategy with its business objectives, and avoid potential reputational damage or regulatory sanctions.

References:

9 Things to Consider When Evaluating an AML Solution

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 38.

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

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

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

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

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

References:

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

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

3: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 313

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

: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 311

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

A compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement inquiry as much as possible, but also ensure that the request is valid, lawful, and does not violate any confidentiality or privacy obligations. Therefore, the compliance officer should collaborate with the FI’s designated department, such as the legal counsel, the senior management, or the board of directors, to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the request12. The compliance officer should also ensure that all communication, written and oral, is funneled through a centralized place, and that the FI maintains a record of the request and the response12.

References:

1: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts, FinCEN, 2014

2: Best Practices for Compliance and Enforcement-Related Information Requests, EPA, 2018

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

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

 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 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

 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

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

Wash trading is the term for trading through multiple accounts, where an individual generates offsetting profits and losses and transfers of positions through accounts that do not appear to be commonly controlled. Wash trading is a form of market manipulation that creates artificial trading activity and volume, and may be used to evade taxes, inflate prices, or launder money. Wash trading can also involve the use of third parties or intermediaries to conceal the true identity and source of funds of the trader.

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

The document titled “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Typologies and Trends in Canadian Securities Dealers” published by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) in December 2019. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “Wash trading is a form of market manipulation where an individual simultaneously sells and buys the same financial instruments to create misleading, artificial activity in the marketplace. Wash trading is illegal under securities law because it misleads investors and regulators about the true supply and demand of the securities involved. Wash trading can also be used to evade taxes, inflate prices, or launder money.”

The document titled “Market Manipulation” published by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). You can access it by clicking here. This document states that “Wash sales are a form of market manipulation in which an investor simultaneously sells and buys the same security to create misleading, artificial activity in the marketplace. Wash sales are illegal under Section 9(a)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wash sales can be used to manipulate the price of a security, evade taxes, or launder money.”

 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

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

Shell companies are business entities that exist only on paper, with no physical presence, no employees, and no operations. They are often used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating mergers and acquisitions, protecting assets, or managing investments. However, they are also frequently exploited for illegal activities, such as tax evasion and money laundering, due to their ability to obscure ownership and financial transactions12. Money launderers can use shell companies to disguise the origin of illicit funds, evade sanctions, and avoid the anti-money laundering (AML) measures that financial institutions use to detect suspicious activity23. The process typically involves setting up a shell company in a jurisdiction known for strict privacy laws, such as a tax haven, and then using it to move and hide illicit funds while hiding the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries13.

In this scenario, the fact that the company has been a client for many years does not rule out the possibility of money laundering. The company could have changed its ownership, activities, or risk profile over time, or it could have been involved in money laundering all along without being detected. The fact that the company has added several new subsidiaries that are recently created shell companies is a red flag that indicates potential money laundering. The company could be using the shell companies to hide the source and destination of its funds, or to conceal the identity of its beneficial owners. The institution should perform enhanced due diligence on the company and its subsidiaries, and report any suspicious transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

References:

How Shell Companies Are Used in Money Laundering: A Detailed Guide

Shell Companies and Money Laundering

The Role of Shell Companies in Money Laundering

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, PEPs are individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state-owned corporations, or important political party officials1. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering and corruption due to their position and influence2. Therefore, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures when dealing with PEPs as customers3. This includes:

Conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship to detect and report any suspicious transactions or activities4. This may involve more frequent reviews, higher-level approvals, or increased documentation of the transactions and the rationale behind them.

Taking adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the business relationship or occasional transaction. This may involve verifying the origin, legitimacy, and purpose of the funds, as well as the economic activities and assets of the PEP.

The other two options are incorrect because:

Expedite due diligence when a PEP is pre-approved by a member of senior management is not a recommended course of action, as it may compromise the quality and integrity of the due diligence process. Pre-approval by senior management does not exempt the financial institution from conducting thorough and timely due diligence on the PEP and the business relationship.

Obtain appropriate senior management approval for establishing a business relationship with a PEP from a high risk country is a necessary but not sufficient course of action, as it does not address the ongoing monitoring and source of funds aspects of the PEP risk management. Senior management approval is required for establishing or continuing a business relationship with a PEP, regardless of the country of origin or residence of the PEP.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 83 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 84 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 85 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 86 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 87 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 88

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

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

References:

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

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

A financial intelligence unit (FIU) is a national body or government agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates financial information related to potential financial crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the core functions of an FIU is to receive disclosures filed by reporting entities, such as banks, money service businesses, casinos, and other obliged entities, that are required to report suspicious or unusual financial activity. These disclosures, also known as suspicious activity reports (SARs) or suspicious transaction reports (STRs), provide valuable intelligence for the FIU and other competent authorities to identify and investigate financial crimes and trace illicit funds. The other statements do not describe the duties of an FIU, but rather the roles of other agencies or bodies, such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the US, which administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions, or the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which sets international standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) supervision and regulation.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Lesson 1: The Financial Intelligence Unit

The Financial Intelligence Unit: Role of the FIU and International Cooperation, Financial Crime Academy

What We Do, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

Wire stripping is the process of removing or altering the identifying information associated with a wire transfer to make it difficult to trace the origin or destination of the funds. This technique is commonly used in money laundering schemes to conceal the illicit source of funds and avoid detection by authorities or sanctions screening systems. In this case, the bank’s operations team deliberately removed the reference to the sanctioned company from the wire transfer message, thus violating the FinCEN “Travel Rule” and facilitating the evasion of sanctions.

References:

Wire Stripping in Anti Money Laundering Parlance

Wire Transfer Red Flags: Understanding Money Laundering and Fraud Risks

Wire Stripping

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?

The Patriot Act, enacted in 2001, introduced several provisions to enhance the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) measures for U.S. banks and their foreign correspondent relationships. Some of the potential issues for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) maintaining correspondent accounts with U.S. banks under the Patriot Act are:

Cancellation of correspondent banking relationships: The Patriot Act requires U.S. banks to conduct due diligence and enhanced due diligence on their foreign correspondent accounts, and to terminate any account that poses a significant risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. This may result in the cancellation of correspondent banking relationships with FFIs that do not meet the U.S. standards or cooperate with the U.S. authorities. The loss of correspondent banking relationships may affect the FFIs’ ability to access the U.S. financial system and provide services to their customers.

Forfeiture of funds in a U.S. interbank account: The Patriot Act authorizes the U.S. government to seize and forfeit any funds in a U.S. interbank account that are involved in or traceable to money laundering or terrorist financing activities. This means that FFIs may face the risk of losing their funds in a U.S. interbank account if they or their customers are suspected or accused of engaging in illicit activities. The forfeiture of funds may have significant financial and reputational consequences for the FFIs and their customers.

Prohibition of correspondent accounts for shell banks: The Patriot Act prohibits U.S. banks from establishing or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group. This means that FFIs that are shell banks or have relationships with shell banks cannot access the U.S. financial system through correspondent accounts. The prohibition of correspondent accounts for shell banks aims to prevent the use of shell banks as vehicles for money laundering and terrorist financing.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 81-841

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III: International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001, Sections 312, 319, and 3132

Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, October 2014, pp. 3-43

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 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

The payment received from an account in an offshore jurisdiction and the lack of beneficial ownership details for the originating account are two money laundering red flags. Offshore jurisdictions are often used by money launderers to hide the source and destination of their funds, as they typically have low transparency and weak regulatory oversight. The absence of beneficial ownership information makes it difficult to identify the true owners and controllers of the funds, and to assess the legitimacy and risk of the transaction. These factors increase the possibility that the payment is related to money laundering, tax evasion, or other illicit activities.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 33

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 1, Task 1.2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1, Lesson 1.2

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 315

A financial institution should examine the country or location where the customer is from or does business, the type and size of the business the customer runs, and the legal structure of the customer’s business, because these factors can indicate the level of money laundering risk associated with the customer. For example, some countries or locations may have weak anti-money laundering laws or high levels of corruption, some types or sizes of businesses may be more prone to generating or concealing illicit funds, and some legal structures may be more complex or opaque than others, making it harder to identify the beneficial owners or controllers of the customer.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD)

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2: Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD), Pages 42-44

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.

A fundraising organization is a type of non-profit organization that may be vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as they often operate in high-risk areas, deal with large amounts of cash, and have complex and opaque structures. Therefore, a fundraising organization warrants enhanced due diligence, which is a higher level of customer verification and monitoring that goes beyond the standard customer due diligence measures. Enhanced due diligence may include obtaining additional information on the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, the beneficiaries, and the governance of the organization.

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 2.2: Customer Due Diligence, p. 33-34

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

Customer due diligence | The Law Society

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

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws1. MLATs provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence that can be used for prosecution and judicial proceedings, such as witness statements, bank records, search and seizure orders, and asset forfeiture2. MLATs also facilitate the cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities of different jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, and cybercrime3. The other options are incorrect because:

B. MLATs do not receive reports of suspicious transactions from financial institutions, but rather request specific information or evidence from foreign authorities. Financial institutions report suspicious transactions to their domestic Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which may then share the information with foreign FIUs through other mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group or bilateral agreements4.

C. MLATs do not obtain intelligence that might lead to evidence, but rather request evidence that is already available or can be obtained by foreign authorities. Intelligence is a broader term that refers to any information that is relevant to the security or interests of a country, and may not be admissible as evidence in a court of law5. Intelligence may be obtained through other means, such as covert operations, surveillance, or informants6.

D. MLATs do not issue the Principles of Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), but rather follow them. The Principles of Information Exchange are a set of guidelines that were adopted by the Egmont Group of FIUs in 2001, and aim to enhance the cooperation and communication among FIUs in exchanging financial information and intelligence7. The Principles of Information Exchange are not legally binding, but rather reflect the best practices and standards of the FIU community.

References:

1: Mutual legal assistance treaty - Wikipedia

2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, page 1

3: The Mutual Legal Assistance Problem explained | wilmap

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 125

5: Intelligence - Wikipedia

6: Intelligence cycle - Wikipedia

7: Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

: Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units for Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Cases

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

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

High-risk: The risks here are significant, but are not necessarily prohibited. To mitigate the heightened risk presented, the financial institution should apply more stringent controls to reduce the ML/FT risk, such as conducting enhanced due diligence and more rigorous transaction monitoring. Countries that maintain a reputation for corruption or drug trafficking are generally considered high-risk. High-risk customers may include politically exposed persons (PEPs) or certain types of money services businesses or cash-intensive businesses; high-risk products and services may include correspondent banking and private banking.

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

2.4 Senior Management Approval

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

Management must approve entering into new relationships.

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

The Wolfsberg Principles for Private Banking are a set of guidelines for private banking relationships that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners in certain circumstances that may indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Among the options given, A, B, and C are the correct choices that reflect the circumstances listed in the Principles.

Foreign jurisdictions are countries or territories other than the one where the bank operates or where the client or beneficial owner resides. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to foreign jurisdictions, especially those that have weak or inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or that are subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures.

High Risk Countries are countries or territories that are identified by credible sources, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), as having inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to high risk countries, and apply enhanced measures to mitigate the risks.

High Risk activities are activities that involve clients and beneficial owners whose source of wealth or funds originates from sectors or industries that are known to be vulnerable to money laundering, such as cash-intensive businesses, gambling, arms trade, precious metals and stones, or art and antiquities. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are engaged in high risk activities, and verify the legitimacy and origin of their wealth and funds.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012)” published by the Wolfsberg Group. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the Wolfsberg Principles and their application on the Wolfsberg Group website and the Lexology website.

A multinational institution may face challenges in conducting a full investigation of unusual activity across its foreign operations, due to the different legal and regulatory frameworks that apply in each jurisdiction. One of the main obstacles is the local privacy and data protection laws that may restrict the access, transfer, or disclosure of customer information, especially personal or sensitive data, to other entities within the same group or to external parties, such as law enforcement or regulators. Therefore, the institution should be aware of the local laws and regulations that govern the collection, processing, and sharing of customer data, and ensure compliance with them12.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 191

Which statement about a multinational institution’s ability to fully investigate unusual activity in all its foreign operations is correct? - Exam4Training

Learn more

1blob:https://www.bing.com/12e36647-a7b4-48a5-9dff-13e7aab69e80

quizlet.com2blob:https://www.bing.com/2c9f865a-c41c-4acb-9e08-acb661cdbbe3

exam4training.com3blob:https://www.bing.com/2c9f865a-c41c-4acb-9e08-acb661cdbbe3

exam4training.com4blob:https://www.bing.com/12e36647-a7b4-48a5-9dff-13e7aab69e80

quizlet.com

A multinational institution may face challenges in conducting a full investigation of unusual activity across its foreign operations, due to the different legal and regulatory frameworks that apply in each jurisdiction. One of the main obstacles is the local privacy and data protection laws that may restrict the access, transfer, or disclosure of customer information, especially personal or sensitive data, to other entities within the same group or to external parties, such as law enforcement or regulators. Therefore, the institution should be aware of the local laws and regulations that govern the collection, processing, and sharing of customer data, and ensure compliance with them12.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 191

Which statement about a multinational institution’s ability to fully investigate unusual activity in all its foreign operations is correct? - Exam4Training

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

According to the FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing, FIs should establish sufficient safeguards concerning the confidentiality of information shared for AML purposes, both within the same financial group and between FIs not belonging to the same group. These safeguards include ensuring that the information is shared only with authorized personnel who have a need to know, that the information is used only for the intended AML purpose, and that the information is protected from unauthorized access, disclosure, or misuse. FIs should also comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements on data protection and privacy, and respect the rights and interests of the customers whose information is shared1.

References:

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

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 employee who avoids taking periodic vacations despite having accrued vacation time may be trying to conceal fraudulent or illegal activities that would be exposed in their absence. This is a common red flag for internal fraud and money laundering, as it indicates a lack of segregation of duties, internal controls, and oversight. Employees who engage in such behavior may also exhibit other signs of stress, defensiveness, or secrecy.

References:

Learn about red flags for internal fraud, section “An employee may be a higher internal fraud risk when a combination of the following red flags are present”, bullet point 1: “Unwilling to share duties or take leave.”

Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, section “Employee Red Flags”, bullet point 1: “Avoiding taking holidays or time off work.”

Top 10 AML Red Flags: Warning Signs and Financial Risks, section “AML Red Flags Categories”, sub-section “Employee Red Flags”, bullet point 1: “Avoiding taking vacations or sick leaves.”

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

Large and frequent credit balances on a credit card resulting in request for refunds is an indicator of suspicious activity because it may suggest that the cardholder is using the credit card to launder money or to conceal the source of funds. This is also known as credit card refund fraud or credit card laundering. The cardholder may make purchases with the credit card using illicit funds, then request refunds to another account or in cash, thus transferring the funds to a legitimate or less traceable channel. This activity may also be used to evade currency reporting requirements or to avoid detection by law enforcement or financial institutions.

References:

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

Suspicious Activity Reporting Indicators and Examples, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Indicator 14: Excess Purchases or Transactions2

Credit Card Laundering, Money Laundering Bulletin, Issue 245, October 2019

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

 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.”

In many jurisdictions, it is a requirement to report certain information regarding STRs to senior management and/or the board of directors. This information may be limited to the number of reports filed, the dollar amounts involved and significant trends as observed by compliance personnel. In some cases, if the activity presents a significant or potentially ongoing risk to the institution, the leaders of the institution should be made aware so that high-level decisions can be made regarding potential changes to systems, staffing, products, services or particular relationships maintained by the institution.

Banks are required by the SAR regulations of their federal banking agency to notify the board of directors or an appropriate board committee that SARs have been filed. However, the regulations do not mandate a particular notification format and banks should have flexibility in structuring their format. Therefore, banks may, but are not required to, provide actual copies of SARs to the board of directors or a board committee. Alternatively, banks may opt to provide summaries, tables of SARs filed for specific violation types, or other forms of notification. Regardless of the notification format used by the bank, management should provide sufficient information on its SAR filings to the board of directors or an appropriate committee in order to fulfill its fiduciary duties, while being mindful of the confidential nature of the SAR. https://bsaaml.ffiec.gov/manual/AssessingComplianceWithBSARegulatoryRequirem ents/0

A suspicious transaction report (STR) is a document that financial institutions must file with the relevant authorities when they detect or suspect any activity that may be related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other criminal offences. An STR should include the details of the customer, the transaction, the reason for suspicion, and any other relevant information.

One of the indicators of suspicious activity is the use of financial instruments, such as checks, money orders, or cashier’s checks, that are drawn on other institutions and deposited in amounts under the currency reporting thresholds. This may suggest that the customer is trying to avoid the detection and reporting of large cash transactions, which is a technique known as structuring or smurfing. Structuring is illegal and may indicate that the customer is laundering money from illicit sources or evading taxes.

Another indicator of suspicious activity is the use of financial instruments that are sequentially numbered, meaning that they have consecutive serial numbers. This may suggest that the customer has obtained the instruments from the same source or issuer, and that they are using them to launder money or finance illegal activities. Sequentially numbered instruments may also indicate that the customer is involved in fraud, such as check kiting or counterfeit checks.

Therefore, if a bank conducts a quarterly review on a retail customer’s account and finds that the customer has made a number of large deposits of financial instruments drawn on other institutions in amounts under the thresholds, and that the instruments were sequentially numbered, the bank will most likely file an STR. This is because this activity does not fit the customer’s historical profile, and it raises a high level of suspicion that the customer is engaged in money laundering or other criminal activities.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 108

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 5, page 7

Anti-money laundering – handling suspicious activity, Section 6.3, page 3

Tell us about suspicious activity that may be linked to money laundering, Section 3, page 1

According to the risk-based approach, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring to higher-risk clients, and take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. If the client exceeds the criteria of an acceptable risk model created by the institution, the institution should communicate the issues to the client and request remedial actions, such as providing additional information, documentation, or evidence of compliance. If the client does not cooperate or comply with the institution’s requirements, the institution should consider terminating the relationship with the client, as the risk may outweigh the benefits of continuing the business relationship.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments, pp. 51-521

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Customer Due Diligence, pp. 97-981

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Risk Assessments, Lesson 2.3: Risk-Based Approach2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Customer Due Diligence, Lesson 4.3: Enhanced Due Diligence

Organized crime groups often use front companies to disguise the origin and destination of their illicit funds, and to integrate them into the legitimate economy. Front companies are businesses that appear to be engaged in lawful activities, but are actually controlled by criminals for money laundering purposes.

One reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to gain control over an entire sector of the economy, such as construction, transportation, or gambling. By using multiple front companies, they can create a network of interrelated businesses that can manipulate prices, evade taxes, and influence public contracts. This can give them a competitive advantage over legitimate businesses, and allow them to launder large amounts of money through seemingly legitimate transactions.

Another reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to comingle their illicit funds with those of legal businesses. By using the bank accounts of front companies, they can deposit cash from criminal activities along with the revenues from legitimate operations, making it harder to trace the source of the funds. They can also transfer funds between different front companies, or use them to pay for goods and services, creating layers of transactions that obscure the money trail.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, page 43

A Guide to the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Part 2, page 9

Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, Chapter 2, page 29

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

 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

Cooperation between FIUs, Law Enforcement Authorities, and Prosecutors

AML and Financial crimes investigation

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

Recommendation 30: Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities

Money laundering and illicit finance

 the specialist should inform the bank’s senior legal advisor of the situation and seek guidance on how to handle the legal request and the internal memos. The specialist should not take any action that could compromise the integrity of the legal request, the bank’s anti-money laundering program, or the specialist’s own professional obligations. The specialist should not place the memos in his personal files, as this could be seen as hiding or tampering with evidence. The specialist should not ask the bank president to document his instructions, as this could create a conflict of interest or a perception of undue influence. The specialist should not call the law enforcement agent and suggest he modify the legal request, as this could be seen as interfering with the investigation or tipping off the account holder.

References:

Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Legal Sector (January 2021) p. 1321

ACAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist | ACAMS2

Anti-Money Laundering – The Law Society of Singapore3

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

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

One of the key components of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is to implement adequate customer due diligence (CDD) measures for new accounts. This includes verifying the identity of the party opening the account, determining the beneficial owner(s) of the account, and seeking to determine the source of deposited funds. These measures help the financial institution (FI) to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, assess the risk profile of the customer, and detect and report any suspicious or unusual activity. Documenting the identity of the party opening the account and the beneficial owner(s) of the account also helps the FI to comply with the record-keeping and reporting requirements of the AML laws and regulations, and to cooperate with the authorities in case of investigations or inquiries. Seeking to determine the source of deposited funds helps the FI to prevent the introduction of illicit funds into the financial system, and to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies between the customer’s profile and activity.

References:

1: FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Banking Sector1

2: OCC Bulletin 2020-10: Customer Due Diligence and Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Procedures2

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

 a financial institution must perform a continuing review of the account for a period of 90 days. The continuing review must include an analysis of any transactions that occur in the account, as well as any changes in the customer's risk profile. The review should be updated as needed to ensure that the customer is not engaging in any suspicious activities.

Civil and Criminal Prosecution, Fines, and Imprisonment: The Chief AML Officer may face legal action, including both civil and criminal proceedings. This could result in fines and even imprisonment if found guilty of negligence or misconduct related to anti-money laundering compliance.

Ban from Employment: Regulators have the authority to ban individuals from working in the financial services industry if they are deemed unfit due to AML-related failures. Such a ban can significantly impact the individual’s career prospects.

Recommend Termination of Employment: While the regulator cannot directly terminate employment, they can recommend that the financial institution (FI) take appropriate action, including termination, based on the Chief AML Officer’s performance.

References:

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

ACAMS AML Glossary (definitions of terms related to AML).1

ACAMS AML Foundations Certificate (overview of AML concepts and responsibilities).2

ComplyAdvantage: 6th Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD) (details on AML regulations and penalties).3

Broker-dealers cannot have correspondent accounts with a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. The USA PATRIOT Act has an extraterritorial effect in that it prohibits broker-dealers from having correspondent accounts with foreign banks that do not have a physical presence in any country. This rule is designed to help prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by making it more difficult for funds to be moved to or through jurisdictions with less stringent anti-money laundering laws.

The most suspicious transaction indicators related to casino activities are:

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

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

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

The option that is not suspicious is:

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

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

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

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

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 ©.

The compliance officer should evaluate the request, determine whether it is valid, and provide the necessary information, subject to management approval. It is important to follow the bank's policies and procedures for responding to law enforcement requests, including verifying the authenticity of the request and the identity of the officer making the request. Additionally, it is important to protect customer privacy and ensure that sensitive information is not released to unauthorized individuals. (Reference: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 6)

The anti-money laundering officer should advise the bank that compliance should have been involved during product development to perform a risk assessment of the product. This is because stored-value cards are considered high-risk products for money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to store, transfer, or access funds anonymously, across borders, or through third parties. A risk assessment would help the bank identify and mitigate the potential vulnerabilities and threats associated with the product, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and training. A risk assessment would also help the bank comply with the regulatory requirements and expectations for offering such products, as well as the industry best practices and standards.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, p. 140-1411

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 1, Task 1.1, p. 42

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Prepaid Cards, Mobile Payments and Internet-Based Payment Services, June 2013, p. 9-103

A domestic business account receiving a wire transfer from an international business with no history of such activity or business needs should be escalated as potentially suspicious activity. This is because this scenario may indicate an attempt to launder money, evade taxes, or finance terrorism through cross-border transfers that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose. The lack of prior relationship or business justification for the wire transfer may also suggest that the transaction is not consistent with the customer’s profile or expected activity. Therefore, this scenario should be investigated further and reported if necessary.

References:

9 Financial & Bank Suspicious Activity Examples, Example 2.

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 40-41.

this activity is unusual and inconsistent with the expected behavior of an accounting firm’s operational account. The account should normally receive fees from clients that are proportional to the services rendered and reflect the market rates. Receiving international payments that are substantially higher than other fees could indicate that the account is being used to launder money or finance terrorism by disguising illicit funds as legitimate income. This could trigger a red flag for the bank and prompt a comprehensive review of the account.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.6, page 24: “Methods to launder money used in banks and other deposit taking institutions”.

ExamTopics, Question 446: “An accounting firm opened an account at a bank that is intended to be used as the operational account for the business. After a few months, a comprehensive review of the account was triggered due to unusual activity on the account. Which most likely triggered the review?”

1. Tax Compliance: Banks have a responsibility to ensure that their clients comply with tax regulations. If a client fails to provide evidence of tax compliance or is unwilling to do so, the bank may terminate the relationship to avoid legal and regulatory risks.

2. Reputational Risk: High-profile clients with extremist political views can create reputational risks for the bank. If the client’s political activities or views could harm the bank’s reputation, the bank may choose to terminate the relationship.

References:

1. ACAMS Certification Package, 6th Edition.

2. The right to terminate a banking relationship unilaterally.

3. A bank’s right to terminate its relationship.

Using self-hosted wallets, or wallets that are stored on the user’s computer, is one of the tactics that may be used to finance terrorism with virtual assets such as Bitcoin. By creating many different donation addresses that are updated continuously, law enforcement will have a harder time tracing transactions. It is also important to note that using the same donation address across multiple donation campaigns and media types, as well as forming relationships with virtual asset service providers that have strong KYC processes in place, can draw attention from law enforcement and should be avoided.

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

When a prosecutor instructs a bank to freeze the assets and bank accounts held by one of its clients, the bank must take the following actions:

Ensure the client and beneficiaries are unable to access any frozen assets during the freeze order. This means the bank must prevent any withdrawals, transfers, payments, or other transactions from the frozen accounts or assets. The bank must also notify the client and beneficiaries of the freeze order and the reason for it. The bank must comply with the freeze order until it is lifted by the court or the prosecutor12.

An affidavit must accompany the freeze order for the bank to comply with the request. An affidavit is a sworn statement that provides the legal basis and evidence for the freeze order. The affidavit must specify the name of the client, the amount and location of the assets to be frozen, the nature and source of the funds, the suspected criminal activity, and the legal authority for the freeze order3 .

The institution should obtain a copy of the court order to freeze the assets of the named individuals. A court order is a legal document that authorizes the bank to freeze the assets and accounts of the client. The court order must be signed by a judge or a magistrate and must include the same information as the affidavit. The bank should keep a copy of the court order for its records and to verify its validity .

References:

Frozen Bank Account: Here’s What You Need to Know

Why Is My Bank Account Frozen? - Investopedia

What Is a Frozen Account? What Causes It and How to Unfreeze It

[Freezing Orders - Practical Law]

[Freezing Orders - The Law Society]

[Freezing Orders - LexisNexis]

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

References:

Setting AML Transaction Monitoring Thresholds 1, ComplyAdvantage, 2020.

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

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

Internet gambling is an ideal web-based money laundering method because it allows criminals to move funds across borders quickly, anonymously, and with minimal oversight12. Internet gambling sites can facilitate the placement, layering, and integration stages of money laundering by accepting cash deposits, issuing virtual credits, allowing bets on various games, and paying out winnings through different payment methods12. Internet gambling also poses challenges for law enforcement and regulators, as it operates in a complex and dynamic environment that involves multiple jurisdictions, service providers, and technologies12.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 671

ACAMS Today, The Growing Threat of Online Gambling Money Laundering2

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Egmont Group assists financial intelligence unit members to accomplish their goals by providing support to expand and systematize cooperation related to the reciprocal exchange of information, fostering better and secure communication through the application of technology, and encouraging operational autonomy of financial intelligence units. Additionally, the Egmont Group also maintains uniform global formats for funds transfers that assist in the detection of money laundering and supplies information on the common money laundering tactics used by terrorists and financial supporters of terrorism.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommends that financial institutions pay special attention to non-face-to-face business relationships or transactions when dealing with new or developing technologies. These include digital channels, online platforms, and virtual interactions. The increased use of technology for remote transactions poses unique risks related to customer identification, authentication, and due diligence. Financial institutions must implement robust controls to mitigate these risks and ensure compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) requirements12.

References:

FATF Opportunities and Challenges of New Technologies for AML/CFT

FATF: New Technologies for AML/CFT

FATF Recommendation 15: New technologies

The anti-money laundering specialist should secure all the documents related to the suspicious activity and the decision to report before submitting the suspicious transaction report (STR). This is to ensure that the evidence is preserved, the confidentiality is maintained, and the audit trail is documented. The documents may include the customer identification, transaction records, account statements, monitoring alerts, investigation reports, and any other relevant information12.

Checking with other financial institutions, adding information to the customer’s file, or contacting the customer are not appropriate actions to take before submitting the STR. These actions may compromise the confidentiality of the report, alert the customer of the suspicion, or interfere with the investigation by the competent authorities12.

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.  35-36. 2: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2.

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

References:

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

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

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

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.

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

According to the web sources I found, FATF Recommendation 18 requires financial institutions to implement group-wide programmes against money laundering and terrorist financing that include policies and procedures for sharing information within the group for AML/CFT purposes12. These programmes should also include compliance management arrangements, screening procedures for hiring employees, an independent audit function and ongoing employee training1.

 The Head of Compliance is responsible for overseeing and managing the AML compliance program of the organization. When an external auditor identifies a finding that indicates a failure to comply with a regulatory requirement, the Head of Compliance should take prompt and appropriate action to address the issue and prevent recurrence. The best course of action is to submit a corrective action plan with a target timeline to the auditor and the relevant regulator, demonstrating the organization’s commitment to remediate the finding and improve its AML compliance program. The corrective action plan should include the root cause analysis of the finding, the specific actions to be taken, the responsible parties, the expected outcomes, and the deadlines for completion. The Head of Compliance should also monitor the progress of the corrective action plan and report any updates or challenges to the auditor and the regulator.

References: = Some of the references that support this answer are:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Global Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program, page 2: “The Firm’s Global Head of Financial Crimes Compliance is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the AML Program and reports to the Firm’s Chief Compliance Officer. … The Global Head of Financial Crimes Compliance is also responsible for ensuring that the Firm responds appropriately to any regulatory inquiries, examinations, or investigations relating to AML matters, and that any identified issues or deficiencies are promptly remediated.”

The Board’s Role in AML Compliance, Section “Board Oversight of AML Compliance Program”: “The board should also ensure that the institution has a process in place to identify, report and correct any compliance deficiencies or violations in a timely manner. This includes ensuring that the institution responds to any regulatory inquiries, examinations or enforcement actions, and implements any required corrective actions.”

AML Compliance Officer: the Role, Skills, and Responsibilities, Section “AML Compliance Officer Responsibilities”: “The AML Compliance Officer is also responsible for: … Reporting to the regulators and auditors on the AML compliance program and its effectiveness; … Developing and implementing corrective action plans for resolution of problematic issues, and providing general guidance on how to avoid or deal with similar situations in the future.”

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Special Recommendation IV, if financial institutions, or other businesses or entities subject to anti-money laundering obligations, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are linked or related to, or are to be used for terrorism, terrorist acts or by terrorist organisations, they should be required to report promptly their suspicions to the competent authorities1. This is consistent with the FATF Recommendation 20, which requires the same reporting obligation for money laundering and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction2. Reporting suspicious transactions related to terrorism is a key measure to detect, prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism and terrorist acts, and to facilitate international cooperation and information exchange.

References:

1: The FATF Recommendations - Financial Action Task Force

2: IX Special Recommendations - Financial Action Task Force

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

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

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

References:

1. Financial Crime Academy: Ensuring Compliance - Building an Effective AML Training Program

2. ACAMS: AML Training - Preparing Auditors to Adequately Assess AML Programs

3. Financial Crime Academy: AML Training for High-Level Executives

4. Financial Crime Academy: Senior Management AML Training Workshops

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.

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

Economic sanctions are measures imposed by countries or international bodies to exert pressure on individuals, entities, or nations that engage in undesirable behavior or actions. Sanctions aim to restrict or prohibit certain economic activities with the targeted parties, such as trade, investments, or financial transactions. They serve various purposes, including achieving foreign policy and national security objectives and deterring undesired actions by countries or entities. Sanctions can be comprehensive (affecting an entire country) or targeted (specific businesses, groups, or individuals), with a recent trend toward minimizing harm to innocent civilians12.

References:

1. Council on Foreign Relations: What Are Economic Sanctions?

2. [Tookitaki: A Complete Guide to Sanctions](https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance-hub/what

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the main challenges of providing on-line services to customers is the verification of their identity and the authentication of their transactions1. The lack of face-to-face contact and the use of electronic documents increase the risk of identity fraud, impersonation, and account takeover2. Therefore, financial institutions offering on-line services need to implement robust customer due diligence (CDD) measures, such as using multiple sources of information, verifying biometric data, and applying risk-based monitoring3.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1, page 103

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 104

3: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, page 105

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

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

When a high volume of incoming wire transfers generates an alert about a client and the funds are immediately debited by cash withdrawals and outgoing wire transfers, the first information that should be reviewed to investigate this alert/case is the customer’s account activity. This is because the account activity can reveal the origin, destination, purpose, frequency, and amount of the wire transfers, as well as any unusual or inconsistent patterns that may indicate money laundering or fraud. The account activity can also help to compare the wire transfers with the customer’s profile, risk rating, expected behavior, and source of funds. Reviewing the account activity can help to determine if the alert is a false positive or a true positive, and if further investigation or reporting is required.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, p. 1251

Investigating Alert/Case of High Volume Wire Transfers | CAMS Exam Prep2

Wire Transfer Red Flags: Money Laundering & Fraud Risks - Alessa3

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision guidelines, the internal audit function should evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the bank’s compliance function and its compliance risk management framework1. This includes assessing the compliance risk inherent in the bank’s activities, products, services, and systems, as well as the compliance policies, procedures, controls, and reporting mechanisms2. The internal audit function should also review the transactions and records of the bank to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and internal standards3.

The other statements are incorrect because:

B. An internal audit program of adequacy of the bank’s compliance function should be established, but should not include review of transactions. This statement is false because the internal audit function should review the transactions and records of the bank to ensure compliance, as mentioned above3.

C. The compliance function and internal audit function should be combined. This statement is false because the compliance function and the internal audit function should be separate and independent from each other, to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure objectivity and credibility.

D. The auditors should not discuss internal audit findings with compliance management to maintain independence. This statement is false because the internal audit function should communicate and coordinate with the compliance function on a regular basis, to share information, insights, and recommendations, and to avoid duplication of work. However, the internal audit function should maintain its independence and report directly to the board of directors or the audit committee.

References:

1: The internal audit function in banks, Principle 10, p. 9

2: The internal audit function in banks, Principle 10, p. 10

3: The internal audit function in banks, Principle 10, p. 11

: The internal audit function in banks, Principle 2, p. 4

: The internal audit function in banks, Principle 10, p. 11

1. A. Micro-structuring cash:

The customer’s behavior of putting high-denomination cash notes into a poker machine without placing bets and then collecting winnings in the form of a check resembles “structuring” or “smurfing.” Structuring involves breaking down large sums of money into smaller transactions to avoid detection. In this case, the customer may be attempting to legitimize illicit funds by converting them into casino winnings1.

2. B. Legitimizing illicit funds:

By using the poker machine to convert cash into a check, the customer is potentially legitimizing illicit funds. The casino winnings obtained through this process may appear legitimate, even though the initial source of the cash remains suspicious1.

A. Micro-structuring cash:

The customer’s actions of repeatedly inserting high-denomination cash notes into the poker machine without placing bets and then collecting winnings in the form of a check resemble structuring. Structuring involves deliberately breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection. Money launderers engage in structuring to obscure the origin of funds and make them appear legitimate. In this case, the customer’s behavior raises red flags and warrants further investigation.

B. Legitimizing Illicit Funds:

By converting cash into casino winnings (in the form of a check), the customer may be attempting to legitimize illicit funds. The casino winnings obtained through this process could be used to create a veneer of legitimacy, even though the initial source of the cash remains suspicious. Casinos are attractive for money launderers due to the anonymity and fluidity of transactions, making it challenging to trace the origin of funds1.

References: 1: Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (6th edition), ACAMS, Chapter 3: “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Methods,” Section 3.1.2: “Structuring.”

 One of the common methods used by money launderers to hide the origin and destination of illicit funds is to create complex corporate structures that obscure the identity of the real owners or controllers of the assets. Lawyers can facilitate this process by providing legal services such as setting up shell companies, trusts, foundations, or other entities in jurisdictions with weak AML regulations or high secrecy. By doing so, lawyers can help their clients evade taxes, avoid sanctions, conceal criminal activities, or launder money. This is why lawyers are considered high-risk professionals for AML purposes and are subject to due diligence and reporting obligations.

References: = Some of the references that support this answer are:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, page 77: “Lawyers are often used to create complex corporate structures that can be used to hide the beneficial ownership of assets.”

Money Laundering Reporting Officer: The Role Of MLRO, Section “Money Laundering Risks For Lawyers”: “Lawyers are at risk of being used by criminals to launder money through various means, such as creating corporate entities, conducting transactions, or providing advice.”

New York Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Ponzi Scheme, Money Laundering, Section “Lawyer agrees to forfeit $19 million from investment scheme”: “A New York lawyer admitted Monday to money laundering and orchestrating an $18.8 million Ponzi scheme using his Forest Hills-based law firms, Wisnicki & Associates LLP and Wisnicki Neuhauser LLP.”

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

References:

1. ComplyAdvantage: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators?

2. HyperVerge: AML Red Flags: A Guide to Identification and Response

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.

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.

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

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

References:

1: Wire Transfer Definition - Investopedia

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

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

 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

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

References:

Egmont Group website

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

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

The key factor that would result in the decision for a financial institution (FI) to exit a client relationship is when the level of residual client risk exceeds the FI’s risk appetite. Residual client risk is the remaining risk after applying the FI’s risk mitigation measures, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting. Risk appetite is the level and type of risk that the FI is willing and able to accept in pursuit of its business objectives. If the residual client risk is higher than the risk appetite, the FI may decide to terminate the relationship to avoid potential regulatory, reputational, or operational consequences.

The other options are not necessarily key factors for exiting a client relationship, because:

The client is a registered charity known to remit funds to high risk geographies where there is limited due diligence information available. This option may indicate a higher level of inherent client risk, but it does not necessarily mean that the FI should exit the relationship. The FI may be able to apply enhanced due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and risk-based controls to mitigate the risk and comply with the regulatory requirements. The FI may also consider the nature and purpose of the client’s activities, the source and destination of the funds, and the potential impact on the client’s beneficiaries.

Closing the client accounts will help reduce the number of transaction monitoring alerts. This option may suggest a possible benefit of exiting the relationship, but it is not a key factor for making the decision. The FI should not base its decision solely on the volume of transaction monitoring alerts, but rather on the quality and relevance of the alerts, the results of the investigation, and the risk assessment of the client. The FI should also ensure that its transaction monitoring system is properly calibrated and validated to avoid generating excessive or false alerts.

Client transactions generate ongoing transaction monitoring alerts that did not result in any SAR/STR filings. This option may indicate a need for reviewing and improving the transaction monitoring system or the investigation process, but it does not necessarily imply that the FI should exit the relationship. The FI should not assume that the absence of SAR/STR filings means that the client is low risk or that the alerts are irrelevant. The FI should conduct a thorough and timely investigation of the alerts and document the rationale for filing or not filing a SAR/STR. The FI should also consider the overall risk profile of the client and the nature and frequency of the transactions.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 3: AML Programs, Section 3.2: AML Program Components, Subsection 3.2.2: Risk Assessment, pp. 77-79

FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Section: Assessing Compliance with BSA Regulatory Requirements, Subsection: Suspicious Activity Reporting, pp. 4-5

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 2, pp. 2-3

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.

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the U.S. government to subpoena records from any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the U.S., regardless of whether the foreign bank has a physical presence in the U.S. or not. The subpoena may request any records relating to the correspondent account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the U.S. If the foreign bank fails to comply with the subpoena, the U.S. government may direct any U.S. financial institution to terminate its correspondent relationship with the foreign bank and impose civil penalties.

References:

Bank Records Related to Anti-Money Laundering Programs, FinCEN, accessed February 2024.

How Patriot Act Affects Financial Institutions?, Sanction Scanner, November 2020.

These two options are indicative of money laundering red flags associated with money service businesses, as they may suggest attempts to avoid reporting requirements, conceal the source or destination of funds, or use false or stolen identities. Money service businesses are vulnerable to money laundering due to the high volume and anonymity of transactions, the ease of cross-border transfers, and the lack of effective regulation and supervision in some jurisdictions12. Therefore, they should implement robust anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and monitor and report any suspicious activity.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, page 631

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3, Lesson 42

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the common methods of money laundering in the insurance sector is to purchase policies with illicit funds, overpay premiums, and then cancel or surrender the policies to receive refunds or payouts1. This allows criminals to move and disguise the source of their funds through the insurance company. Therefore, the regular withdrawals from the policy by the end of the month could indicate a money laundering scheme. Moreover, the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector states that unidentified third parties depositing cash to the policy could also pose a high money laundering risk, as cash transactions are difficult to trace and third parties may act as intermediaries or nominees for the real beneficiaries2. Therefore, the insurance company should conduct enhanced due diligence on the policyholder and the third parties, and monitor the transactions for any suspicious activity.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 671

FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector, pages 18-192

The USA PATRIOT Act of 20011 is a comprehensive anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation that grants various powers and authorities to the US government to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. Among its provisions, Title III of the Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 20012, specifically addresses the issue of correspondent banking and the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing through foreign banks that maintain accounts with US banks. Section 319 of Title III3 authorizes the US Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a subpoena or summons to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the US, and to request any records relating to such account, including records maintained outside the US. Furthermore, Section 319(b) of Title III4 allows the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the foreign bank fails to comply with such a subpoena or summons, or if the US authorities initiate a civil forfeiture action against the funds in the correspondent account. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is the correct answer, as it enables the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the correspondent account is found to have facilitated a transaction involving tainted funds.

References:

USA PATRIOT Act

Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act

Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act

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

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

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

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

D. Large Cash Deposit Followed by ATM Withdrawals:

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

E. Inconsistent Cash Transactions:

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

References: 1: Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (6th edition), ACAMS, Chapter 3: “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Methods,” Section 3.1.2: “Structuring,” and Section 3.1.3: “Inconsistent Cash Transactions.”

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

References:

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

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the red flags for money laundering is the structuring of cash transactions to avoid reporting thresholds. Structuring is the practice of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits or withdrawals that are below the reporting threshold of $10,000 in the United States or equivalent amounts in other jurisdictions. Structuring is done to evade the detection and reporting of cash transactions by financial institutions to the authorities. Therefore, when an accountable institution identifies that a customer is engaging in structuring or other forms of cash transaction manipulation, it should file a SAR/STR to report the suspicious activity1

References: 1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 64.

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 ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the four pillars of an effective anti-money laundering compliance program is the training of appropriate employees on their responsibilities and the institution’s policies and procedures. Training is essential to ensure that employees are aware of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, the applicable laws and regulations, the red flags and indicators of suspicious activity, and the reporting and record-keeping requirements. Without proper training, employees may not be able to perform their duties effectively and efficiently, and may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks.

The other options are less serious deficiencies, but still need to be addressed and corrected. The compliance officer should have regular meetings with upper management to inform them of the current money laundering trends and the status of the compliance program, but this is not as critical as providing training to the employees. The company’s anti-money laundering manual should be updated to reflect any changes in the internal controls, policies, or procedures, but this is not as urgent as ensuring that the employees are familiar with the existing ones. The company should download the most recent regulation from the Financial Intelligence Unit web site, but this is not as important as complying with the existing ones.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.4, page 39.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.1.4.

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.

A subpoena is a legal order that requires a person or an entity to produce documents, information, or testimony related to a legal matter. A financial intelligence unit (FIU) is a specialized unit within a financial institution that is responsible for detecting, analyzing, and reporting suspicious activities and transactions. When a bank receives a subpoena regarding one of its clients, the FIU should review the subpoena and perform a transaction review to determine if there is any evidence of money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, or other criminal activity involving the client. The FIU should also respond fully to the subpoena by providing the requested information and documents, unless there is a valid reason to object or seek a protective order. The FIU should not adjust the client’s risk score, file a SAR, or close the client’s account based solely on the receipt of the subpoena, as these actions may be premature, inappropriate, or illegal. Adjusting the client’s risk score may require further investigation and due diligence. Filing a SAR may be unnecessary or misleading if the subpoena does not indicate any suspicious activity. Closing the client’s account may violate the bank’s contractual obligations, customer service standards, or anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, these actions may alert the client or the subject of the investigation to the existence of the subpoena, which may interfere with the legal process or jeopardize the safety of the bank or its employees.

References:

Subpoena Responses for Financial Institutions

Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts

SUBPOENA COMPLIANCE UPDATE

[ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 140]

During a money laundering investigation, law enforcement agents often employ the “follow the money” approach. This investigative technique focuses on tracing financial transactions and identifying patterns to uncover illicit activities. By analyzing the movement of funds, investigators can reveal hidden connections, identify suspicious behavior, and build a case against money launderers. It involves tracking the flow of funds through various accounts, financial institutions, and jurisdictions to understand the underlying criminal activity12.

References:

An Introduction to the 360 Degree AML Investigation Model

Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture - LEB

Recommendation 30: Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities

Money Laundering: A Guide for Criminal Investigators

When presented with a search warrant, the AML specialist should record the names and affiliations of the agents who conduct the search. This will help in identifying who conducted the search in case there are any issues that need to be addressed later. Additionally, the AML specialist should obtain a copy of the warrant or photocopy the original warrant. This is important to ensure that the warrant is valid and that the agents are authorized to conduct the search. It is not appropriate to ask the agents questions or remember what items they have seized, as this could interfere with the search and potentially lead to legal issues. Finally, leaving the premises to allow the agents to conduct the search is not necessary, as the AML specialist has the right to be present during the search.

The board of directors or designated specialized committee should be provided with statistical data regarding SARs/STRs filed during the reported period, such as the number, type, value, and geographic distribution of the reports, as well as any trends or patterns identified. This information helps the board or committee to oversee the effectiveness of the firm’s AML program, assess the level of compliance risk, and allocate appropriate resources and training. Providing all possible details, names of customers, or copies of SARs/STRs may compromise the confidentiality of the reports, violate data protection laws, or expose the firm to legal liability.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (6th Edition), Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, page 223.

The Role of the Money Laundering Reporting Officer - ICAEW, page 14.

The customer’s relocation and expansion to different jurisdictions constitutes a triggering event that requires ongoing due diligence on this client, as it may indicate changes in the customer’s risk profile, business activities, or beneficial ownership. The bank should update the customer’s information, verify the identity and legitimacy of the new entities, and assess the level of money laundering and sanctions risks associated with the new locations12. The other options are not triggering events, as they are either consistent with the customer’s normal business operations or do not affect the customer’s risk profile.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 931

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

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

References:

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

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

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, a risk-based approach for EDD means that the FI applies more or less stringent measures depending on the level of risk posed by each client1. This allows the FI to allocate its resources more efficiently and effectively, and to focus on the clients that pose the highest risk of money laundering or terrorist financing2. Applying EDD for every new client, regardless of their risk profile, may not be the best use of the FI’s resources, and may not reflect the proportionality and relevance of the EDD measures3.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2, page 69

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, page 70

3: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 71

If a financial institution wishes to close an account due to concerns about potential money laundering or other financial crimes, it is generally required to file a suspicious activity report (SAR) with the appropriate government agency. However, there may be instances where the government requires the account to remain open for ongoing investigation purposes.

In such cases, the government must provide a written request under proper letterhead and authority to keep the account open. This document will serve as legal justification for the financial institution to maintain the account, even though it may pose a higher risk for money laundering or other financial crimes.

 This is a red flag of money laundering or terrorist financing that involves the use of non-profit organizations (NPOs) as conduits for illicit funds. NPOs may be vulnerable to abuse by criminals who exploit their legitimate activities, reputation, and access to funds and resources. A transaction monitoring process that would alert a bank for this red flag activity is to analyze the source, destination, frequency, and purpose of the funds transferred to and from the charity account, and to compare them with the expected profile and activity of the NPO. If the bank detects any inconsistency, discrepancy, or deviation from the norm, it should raise an alert and conduct further investigation.

References:

FATF Report: Risk of Terrorist Abuse in Non-Profit Organisations, page 9

Transaction Monitoring Processes for Red Flag Activity in Banking

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, section “Red flags related to the nature of transactions”

 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 anti-money laundering officer should advise the account-opening officer to verify the identity of all the partners as an initial step. This is because opening a bank account for an offshore company with multiple owners from different jurisdictions poses a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, the bank should apply enhanced due diligence measures to ensure that the offshore company and its owners are legitimate and not involved in any criminal activities. One of the key measures is to verify the identity of all the partners, not just the one who presents the power of attorney. This will help the bank to establish the beneficial ownership and control structure of the offshore company, as well as to detect any possible fraud, forgery, or coercion in the power of attorney document. The bank should also verify the authenticity and validity of the power of attorney, and the scope and purpose of the authority granted to the partner who requests the account opening.

The other options are less important or irrelevant as initial steps. Verifying the source of the deposit is also a part of the enhanced due diligence process, but it should be done after verifying the identity of the partners and the offshore company. Filing a suspicious transaction report with the appropriate Financial Intelligence Unit or the Egmont Group is a possible action that the bank may take if it detects any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing in the account opening process, but it is not an initial step. The Egmont Group is an international network of Financial Intelligence Units that facilitates information exchange and cooperation, but it is not a reporting authority.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 3: Customer Identification and Verification, 1

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 4: Customer Risk Assessment, 2

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 5: Ongoing Monitoring, 3

Powers of attorney: opening a bank account, 4

The correct answer is A and D, as these two statements are directly quoted from the Wolfsberg Group’s “Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism” document1. Statement A describes the general role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism, while statement D describes the specific due diligence measures that financial institutions should apply to customers engaged in high-risk sectors or activities. Statement B and C are not part of the Wolfsberg Group’s document, and they are not accurate descriptions of the role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism. Statement B is too vague and unrealistic, as financial institutions cannot guarantee to drive down terrorism by analyzing activity types. Statement C is too narrow and prescriptive, as financial institutions may not have the resources or the mandate to create dedicated financial intelligence units for terrorist financing.

References: 1: The Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism – Wolfsberg Statement, page 213-214.

The FATF communicates its findings regarding jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies by issuing two formal documents three times per year, namely the FATF Public Statement and the Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: On-going Process document1. These documents identify the jurisdictions that have serious and/or systemic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes and the progress they have made in addressing them. The FATF also calls on its members and other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures or enhanced due diligence measures to protect the international financial system from the risks emanating from these jurisdictions1.

References: =

1: High-risk and other monitored jurisdictions - Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the best practices for dealing with law enforcement inquiries is to verify the identity and authority of the law enforcement officer before providing any information (p. 224). This is to ensure that the inquiry is legitimate and not a phishing attempt or a breach of confidentiality. The compliance officer should also document the inquiry and the information provided, and consult with legal counsel if necessary. The other options are not appropriate, as they may either violate the law, compromise the investigation, or create unnecessary work.

References:

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

What Is An AML Officer1

Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts 2

The Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking require new clients to be approved by at least one person other than the private banker. This is because the private banker may have a conflict of interest or be influenced by the client’s wealth or reputation. The approval process should involve a senior manager or a compliance officer who can independently assess the client’s risk profile and suitability for the institution’s services12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, p. 37 2: The Wolfsberg Group, The Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking, June 2000, p. 3, https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/Wolfsberg-AML-Principles-for-Private-Banking-June-2000.pdf

An institution should incorporate on-going training, periodic audits, and ability to incorporate relevant legislative and regulatory AML changes in its AML policies and procedures. These are essential elements of an effective AML program, as they ensure that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the institution is compliant with the applicable laws and regulations, and the AML program is updated and adapted to the changing risks and environment.

References: =

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

QUE According to the ACAMS Study Guide, one of the skills of an effective AML investigator is to conduct investigative interviews using appropriate techniques and methods1. One of the techniques is to use open-ended questions that elicit detailed responses from the interviewee, and to avoid leading or suggestive questions that may reveal the investigator’s assumptions or suspicions1. Therefore, the best option is to ask question of a material nature about the suspected false statements without revealing the suspected deception, as this would allow the investigator to gather more information and evidence, and to test the consistency and credibility of the interviewee’s answers.

The other options are not advisable or effective, because:

A. Informing the suspect that deception is obvious and continuing the interview is not a good strategy, because it may antagonize the suspect and make them less cooperative or more defensive. It may also alert the suspect to the investigator’s knowledge and sources, and give them an opportunity to change or modify their story2.

B. Advising the suspect that the interview will be terminated if there is suspicion of deception is not a good strategy, because it may create a negative impression of the investigator and the investigation, and it may discourage the suspect from providing any useful information. It may also imply that the investigator has insufficient evidence or authority to pursue the case2.

C. Directing the interview in another direction until there is better rapport before returning back to the troubling question is not a good strategy, because it may waste time and resources, and it may lose the focus and momentum of the investigation. It may also signal to the suspect that the investigator is not confident or competent, and it may give the suspect a chance to prepare or rehearse their answers2.

References:

1: ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation, page 105. 2: 46 AML Investigator Interview Questions (And Sample Answers)

STION NO: 96

A bank employee recently opened an account for a new restaurant. Daily cash deposits over a three-month

period are close to $9,500.

What are two red flags that indicate possible money laundering or terrorist financing? (Choose two.)

A. The restaurant is located in a different city

B. The daily cash deposits are so close in amount

C. It is a new account that has daily cash deposits

D. The new account demonstrates a steady flow of income

Answer: BD

These two options are potential red flags for money laundering or terrorist financing because they could indicate an attempt to avoid the reporting threshold of $10,000 for cash transactions, or to conceal the source or origin of the funds. According to the ACAMS Study Guide, some common indicators of money laundering are:

Transactions structured to avoid recordkeeping or reporting requirements

Transactions inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity

Transactions involving the use of multiple accounts or locations

Transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions or entities

Transactions involving cash or complex crypto assets

The other two options are not necessarily red flags by themselves, as they could have legitimate explanations. For example, the restaurant could be located in a different city because of market demand, or the new account could demonstrate a steady flow of income because of the success of the business.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 41-42

FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, page 1-2

4 Red Flags of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing, page 1

Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, page 1