CAMS Sample Questions Answers

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

References:

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

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 272.

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.

According to the Wolfsberg Group’s Statement on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism1, a compliance officer should include the following three procedures in revising an institution’s CTF efforts:

Consulting applicable lists and taking appropriate actions to determine if customers appear on such lists. This procedure is important to prevent terrorist organizations from accessing the financial services of the institution and to comply with the sanctions and regulations imposed by competent authorities. The compliance officer should implement procedures for checking the customers against the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations issued by relevant authorities and taking reasonable and practicable steps to verify the identity and status of the customers.

Reporting matches from lists of known or suspected terrorists to relevant authorities. This procedure is important to assist the authorities in their efforts to detect and disrupt terrorist financing and to fulfill the legal obligations of the institution. The compliance officer should report to the relevant authorities any matches from the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations consistent with the applicable laws and regulations regarding the disclosure of customer information.

Maintaining customer information to facilitate timely retrieval of such information. This procedure is important to enable the institution to respond promptly and effectively to the enquiries and requests from the authorities and to enhance the quality and accuracy of the customer data. The compliance officer should explore ways of improving the maintenance of customer information to facilitate the timely retrieval of such information.

References:

Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing

UNUSUAL CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCES

• Customer furnishes unusual or suspicious identification documents or declines to produce originals for verification."

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

 According to the web search results, the Egmont Group is a united body of 170 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that provides a platform for FIUs to securely exchange expertise and financial intelligence to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12. The goal of the Egmont Group is to provide a forum for FIUs around the world to improve support to their respective governments in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes345. The other options are not correct because they either do not capture the full scope of the Egmont Group’s activities, or they are not the primary focus of the Egmont Group.

References: https://egmontgroup.org/

https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239473.htm\

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

 the internal investigation did not examine the brokerage account, which could be a potential source of money laundering. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the common methods of money laundering is to use securities brokers to move funds through the purchase and sale of stocks, bonds, or other instruments1. The customer’s frequent transfers from the business account to the brokerage account, and the increased volume of activity in the business account, could indicate that the customer is trying to disguise the origin or ownership of illicit funds by investing them in money market securities. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should recommend the internal investigator to concentrate on the trades made in the brokerage account, and to look for any signs of market manipulation, insider trading, or unusual patterns of transactions1.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 55-56.

The audit function should report to the audit committee of the board of directors (or similar oversight body) and independently evaluate the risk management and controls of the bank through periodic assessments, including the adequacy of the bank’s controls to mitigate the identified risks, the effectiveness of the bank’s staff’s execution of the controls, the effectiveness of the compliance oversight and quality controls and the effectiveness of the training.

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

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

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

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

References:

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

 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.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the red flags for money laundering in crowdfunding platforms is “projects that are fully funded within a very short period of time, especially if the funding comes from a small number of donors or from a single donor” (p. 222). This could indicate that the project is a front for laundering illicit funds or financing terrorism. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering risk, as they could be explained by legitimate factors such as the popularity, urgency, or ambition of the project.

References:

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

ESMA. (2015)Questions and Answers: Investment-based crowdfunding and money laundering/terrorist financing 1. Paris, France: ESMA.

Bringing $15,000 worth of chips into the casino is a red flag because it could indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the currency transaction reporting (CTR) requirement for cash transactions over $10,0001. Requesting a wire transfer to an unrelated third party is another red flag because it could indicate that the customer is trying to conceal the source or destination of the funds, or transfer them to a high-risk jurisdiction2.

References:

1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.1: Regulatory Requirements, Slide 8 2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Casinos and Gaming, Section 3.2: Money Laundering Methods and Red Flags, Slide 11

The inherent level of anti-money laundering risk across the entire organization depends on various factors, such as the nature, size, complexity, and structure of the business, the customers, the products and services, and the countries or jurisdictions involved. Among the four options given, the transaction monitoring program and the customer due diligence program are not factors that determine the inherent risk, but rather measures that mitigate the risk. Therefore, they are not relevant for the compliance officer’s purpose. The countries that the bank operates in and the products and services offered by the bank are important factors that affect the inherent risk, as they may expose the bank to different levels of money laundering threats, vulnerabilities, and regulatory requirements. For example, some countries or jurisdictions have high levels of corruption, unstable governments, or are known as money laundering havens1. They could also have inadequate AML/CFT regulatory and judicial frameworks, or be subject to economic sanctions2. Similarly, some products and services may pose higher risks than others, such as those that involve cash transactions, cross-border transfers, anonymous or non-face-to-face customers, or complex or innovative features34.

References: =

1: AML risk-rating models | McKinsey

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

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

5: Anti Money Laundering Risk Assessment - Financial Crime Academy

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

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature uses a money trader to ensure that US drug sales revenue doesn’t cross any borders. Instead, those dollars are used to purchase any number of legitimate commodities from unsuspecting businesses on behalf of legitimate South American businesspersons, whose legitimate imports are used to obtain pesos for the drug cartels. This method is closely associated with international trade because it involves the exchange of goods and currencies across different countries, and it exploits the discrepancies between the official and unofficial exchange rates.

References:

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

Black Market Peso Exchange in Money Laundering - Financial Crime Academy

What is BMPE ? - Sanction Scanner

Overview - FinCEN.gov

 The next course of action for the anti-money laundering officer to take is to determine if there is a readily identifiable cause for the increase in compliance deficiencies. This could involve analyzing the data, interviewing the staff, reviewing the procedures, or conducting a root cause analysis. The anti-money laundering officer should try to find out if the deficiencies are due to human error, system failure, policy ambiguity, training gap, external factors, or any other reason. By identifying the cause, the anti-money laundering officer can then take appropriate corrective or preventive measures to address the issue and improve the compliance performance.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pages 171-172

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 3, Task 3.1, Skill 3.1.2

Anti-Money Laundering & Know Your Customer eBook, Chapter 5, pages 63-64

Summary of the Global Anti-Money Laundering Know Your Customer Policy, page 3

 According to the FATF Recommendation 12, financial institutions should take reasonable measures to determine whether the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and/or, where required, the beneficial owner of the beneficiary are politically exposed persons. This should occur at the latest at the time of the payout1. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the abuse of life insurance products for money laundering or terrorist financing by PEPs or their associates. Therefore, the best way to mitigate the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP is to perform due diligence on the beneficiary, such as verifying their identity, relationship with the PEP, and source of funds2.

The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the FATF standards, or do not adequately address the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP. Determining the source of wealth and source of funds is a measure that should be applied to the PEP as the customer, not the beneficiary, as part of the enhanced due diligence process2. Declining the request if the beneficiary is a foreign PEP may not be feasible or proportional, as not all foreign PEPs are involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, and some may have legitimate reasons to add a beneficiary to their life insurance policy. Declining the request to add a beneficiary due to increased risk may also not be feasible or proportional, as it may violate the contractual rights of the PEP as the customer, and may not be necessary if the due diligence on the beneficiary does not reveal any red flags or suspicions.

References: https://complyadvantage.com/insights/peps-life-insurance/

https://www.cfatf-gafic.org/index.php/documents/fatf-40r/378-fatf-recommendation-12-politically-exposed-persons

"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. Financial institutions should draft procedures that document the factors to consider when determining whether a suspicious transaction report (STR) is appropriate."

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

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

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

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

References:

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

The activity of a teller distributing bank brochures to customers who regularly conduct cash transactions below reporting limits warrants further review. This is because the teller may be facilitating or encouraging structuring, which is a form of money laundering that involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting requirements. Structuring is illegal and can expose the institution and the employee to civil or criminal penalties. The teller may also be acting as an agent or a recruiter for money launderers who use the bank’s services to launder their illicit funds12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, p. 28-29 2: FATF Report: Money Laundering through the Physical Transportation of Cash, October 2015, p. 23-24, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/money-laundering-through-transportation-cash.pdf

The customer’s wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and the large volume of activity with low month-end balance are two facts that should be considered during the course of an investigation into possible money laundering. These facts may indicate that the customer is trying to move funds from or to countries that have weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that are known to be a source or destination of illicit funds12. They may also suggest that the customer is using a technique called “smurfing” or “structuring”, which involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting34. The other two facts are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, as the customer may have a legitimate reason to have a long-standing account at the bank or to be on the exempt list for currency transaction reporting requirements.

References: 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Geographic Concerns, 5; 2: AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators?, ComplyAdvantage, 6; 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual, Appendix F: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, Transaction Has Unusual Features, 5; 4: Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, High Speed Training, 7.

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

A law enforcement agency may request account opening documents and account statements from the institution to facilitate its investigation of a suspicious transaction report (STR). These documents can provide valuable information about the identity, background, source of funds, and transaction patterns of the customer, as well as any red flags or anomalies that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activities. Account opening documents may include identification documents, verification documents, customer due diligence forms, risk assessment forms, etc. Account statements may include transaction details, balances, fees, charges, etc.

References:

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 115-116

FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 20131, p. 20

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 20172, p. 11

A customer who is nervous, uneasy, or in a hurry to cash a large cashier’s check may be trying to launder money or evade reporting requirements. The teller should complete the transaction as normal, but also flag the customer’s account for further monitoring and review. The teller should look for any unusual or suspicious patterns of activity, such as frequent large cash transactions, transfers to or from high-risk jurisdictions, or transactions that do not match the customer’s profile or expected behavior. The teller should also document the transaction and the customer’s demeanor, and report any findings or concerns to the appropriate authority within the bank.

The teller should not confer with the bank’s account going forward, as this may alert the customer to the bank’s suspicion or compromise the investigation. The teller should not file a SAR on the customer, unless there are other grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, as this may be premature or unnecessary. The teller should not file a CTR on the customer by the end of the day, unless the transaction exceeds the threshold of $10,000, as this is a legal requirement for cash transactions in the US.

References:

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

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

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

17 AML Analyst Interview Questions and Answers, CLIMB, July 15, 2022.

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

References:

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

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

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

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

it describes the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with shell banks. This is one of the requirements for correspondent accounts in the USA PATRIOT Act, which is a law enacted in 2001 to enhance the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act requires that correspondent banks, which are banks that provide services to other banks, such as clearing, settlement, or cash management, to obtain a certification from their respondent banks, which are banks that receive services from correspondent banks, to ensure that they are not involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities. One of the elements of the certification is that the respondent bank does not do business with shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence or meaningful supervision in any jurisdiction, and are often used by money launderers and other criminals to hide their identity and funds.

The other options are not necessarily the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although they may have some relevance or importance depending on the circumstances and the nature of the correspondent relationship. Option A describes a possible certification by a federal receiver, which is a person appointed by a court to take custody and control of the assets of a failed bank, but this is not related to the correspondent accounts requirements in the USA PATRIOT Act. Option B describes a possible certification by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with politically exposed persons (PEPs), which are individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions or their close associates or family members, and who may pose a higher risk of money laundering or corruption, but this is not a mandatory element of the certification under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it may be a good practice or a risk-based measure. Option C describes a possible certification by a correspondent bank, certifying that they do not open correspondent accounts for alternative remittance companies, which are businesses that provide money transfer or payment services outside the formal banking system, and which may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but this is not a requirement for the respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it may be a regulatory obligation or a risk-based measure for the correspondent bank.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 7, pages 156-157

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

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.

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

 A financial institution can verify the nature and purpose of a business and its legitimacy by using an independent information verification process, such as by accessing public and private databases. This method can help the financial institution to check the names of businesses against anti-money laundering (AML) watchlists, parse and analyze ownership information to determine beneficial ownership structure, and run the beneficial owners themselves through identity verification and AML watchlist checks1. This can also help the financial institution to comply with the regulatory requirements for customer due diligence (CDD), which include obtaining and analyzing sufficient customer information to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile2. Other methods, such as reviewing a copy of the corporation’s latest audited reports and accounts, undertaking a company search or other commercial inquiries, or reviewing the company’s website, may not provide sufficient or reliable information to verify the nature and purpose of a business and its legitimacy.

References:

Customer due diligence for banks by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001.

How to Verify Legitimate Businesses and Merchants by Trulioo, March 2021.

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking, the beneficial owners of a private banking account are those who generally have ultimate control over the funds in the account and those who are the ultimate source of funds for the account and whose source of wealth should be subject to due diligence1. These two criteria are meant to ensure that the bank knows who is ultimately behind the account and where the funds come from, in order to prevent the use of the bank for money laundering or other criminal purposes. Authorized signers on the account or those who have legal title to a controlling share interest in the customer are not necessarily the beneficial owners, as they may act on behalf of others or have limited influence over the account.

References: 1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, 1

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

References:

Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses1

What Is A Money Services Business?2

Money Services Business (MSB) Information Center3

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

 According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the insurance products that is particularly vulnerable to money laundering is annuity, which is “a contract that provides a series of payments over a specified period of time, usually for the life of the annuitant” (p. 223). Annuities can be used by money launderers to deposit large sums of illicit funds in a single transaction, or to receive regular payments from a legitimate source after paying the premiums with dirty money. Annuities can also be surrendered or transferred to third parties, making it difficult to trace the origin and destination of funds.

References:

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

ComplyAdvantage. (2023)AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering 1. Retrieved from https://complyadvantage.com

Financial Crime Academy. (2023)Anti Money Laundering (AML) In Insurance Industry In 2021 2. Retrieved from https://financialcrimeacademy.org

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

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

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

References:

1: OFAC website

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

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

4: ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 93

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

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

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

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

According to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a financial institution or business must establish an anti-money laundering (AML) program that includes at least four elements: (a) a system of internal policies, procedures and controls to prevent, detect and report money laundering and other illicit activities; (b) a designated compliance officer who is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the AML program; © an ongoing employee training program that covers the legal and regulatory obligations, the risks and red flags of money laundering, and the roles and responsibilities of the staff in the AML program; and (d) an independent audit function that tests and evaluates the adequacy and compliance of the AML program12.

While the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a key agency that enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, entities and individuals, it is not part of the BSA or the AML program requirements. However, financial institutions and businesses are expected to comply with OFAC regulations and screen their customers and transactions against the OFAC lists of sanctioned parties. Failure to do so may result in civil or criminal penalties34. Therefore, it is advisable for financial institutions and businesses to have an OFAC program that is integrated with their AML program, but it is not a mandatory element that they have to specifically address in their AML program.

References:

1: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (2020). Anti-Money Laundering Programs

2: ACAMS (2020). CAMS Certification Package (6th Edition)

3: Office of Foreign Assets Control (2023). Sanctions Programs and Country Information

4: Moses & Singer LLP (2023). Anti-Money Laundering, Bank Secrecy and OFAC Regulations

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

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

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

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

A bank employee who willfully violates anti-money laundering laws faces the risk of criminal investigation and imprisonment, as these are serious offenses that could result in felony charges and penalties. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, individuals who knowingly violate the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or other anti-money laundering laws could face up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $500,0001. Similarly, in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, individuals who commit money laundering offenses could face imprisonment and/or fines234.

References:

1: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments, Section 2101 2: UK Government, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 7: Money Laundering Offences, Section 327-329 3: Government of Canada, Criminal Code, Part XII.1: Laundering of Proceeds of Crime, Section 462.31 4: Australian Government, Criminal Code Act 1995, Chapter 10: National Infrastructure, Part 10.2: Money Laundering, Section 400.3-400.9

Penalties for AML/CFT violations, including criminal and civil penalties, fines, jail terms, as well as internal sanctions, such as disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

 According to the BSA/AML Manual1, once a financial institution files a SAR, it should maintain a copy of the SAR and the original or business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a period of five years from the date of filing the SAR. The supporting documentation should be identified and maintained by the financial institution as such, and be deemed to have been filed with the SAR. The financial institution should make all supporting documentation available to FinCEN or any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, or any federal regulatory authority that examines the financial institution for compliance with the BSA, upon request. Therefore, the best action to take regarding a particular account once suspicious activity is reported by the institution is to secure all supporting documentation, as it may be needed for further investigation or examination.

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

This is when a customer or a transaction does not provide sufficient or credible information about their identity, source of funds, business activity, or purpose of the transaction. Lack of transparency can indicate that the customer or the transaction is trying to conceal the origin, ownership, or destination of illicit funds, or to evade regulatory scrutiny or reporting obligations. Lack of transparency is a common risk factor for money laundering and terrorist financing, especially in high-risk jurisdictions or sectors.

The other options are not necessarily red flags, although they may increase the risk or require further due diligence depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option A describes a referral by a longtime friend of the dealer, which may be a legitimate source of trust or business relationship, but it does not substitute the need for proper customer identification and verification. Option B describes the location of the precious metals dealer, which may be a high-risk jurisdiction due to factors such as weak governance, corruption, crime, or sanctions, but it does not imply that the dealer or the customer is involved in money laundering. Option C describes the amount and nature of the transaction, which may be unusual or large, but it does not necessarily indicate money laundering, as long as the customer can provide a reasonable explanation and evidence for the source and use of funds.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, pages 64-65

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-3.pdf

Havens for money laundering and terrorist financing are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of anonymity, secrecy, and protection to criminals who seek to conceal or move their illicit funds. These havens typically have the following three attributes12:

Limited types of institutions and persons covered by money laundering laws and regulations. This means that only a narrow range of financial activities or entities are subject to anti-money laundering (AML) and combatting the financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations, such as customer due diligence, record-keeping, reporting, and supervision. For example, some havens may exclude lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or non-bank financial institutions from AML/CFT requirements.

Little enforcement of the laws, weak penalties or provisions that make it difficult to confiscate or freeze assets related to money laundering. This means that the authorities in these havens lack the political will, resources, or capacity to effectively implement and enforce the AML/CFT laws and regulations. They may also impose low sanctions or fines for non-compliance, or create legal barriers or obstacles for the confiscation or freezing of assets that are the proceeds of, or used in, or intended or allocated for use in, money laundering, terrorist financing, or other crimes.

Absence of an effective FIU. This means that these havens do not have a central agency that is responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other crimes. An effective FIU is essential for facilitating domestic and international cooperation and information exchange, as well as for supporting investigations and prosecutions of money laundering and terrorist financing cases.

References:

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

According to Section 313 of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from maintaining 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 group. Therefore, a non-U.S. bank must provide the name and address of all shell banks that it maintains accounts for, if any, to its U.S. correspondent. This is to ensure that the U.S. financial institution does not indirectly provide services to shell banks, which pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

According to Section 319 (b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions that provide a correspondent account to a foreign bank must maintain records of the owners of the foreign bank and the name and address of a U.S. person who is authorized to receive service of legal process for records regarding the correspondent account. This is to facilitate the access of U.S. law enforcement authorities to information related to the correspondent account in case of an investigation or a subpoena.

The other two options, B and C, are not required by the USA PATRIOT Act, although they may be part of the due diligence or enhanced due diligence procedures that U.S. financial institutions apply to their foreign correspondent accounts, as per Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

References:

USA PATRIOT Act

FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

US PATRIOT ACT

CAMS Exam: USA PATRIOT Act Requirements for Opening a Correspondent Account

 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 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.

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 27

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

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

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

References:

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

ACAMS website, section on CAMS certification

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

According to the 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

According to the Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3rd AMLD), a politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, government ministers, judges, senior military officers, or members of parliament1. The 3rd AMLD requires institutions and persons covered by the Directive to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures when dealing with PEPs residing in another Member State or in a third country, in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing risks1. The 3rd AMLD also specifies that a person who is no longer entrusted with a prominent public function shall not be considered a PEP after a period of at least one year has elapsed since that person left office, unless the institution or person covered by the Directive has knowledge or reason to believe that the person is still exposed to specific risks2. However, the Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, which lays down implementing measures for the 3rd AMLD, extends this period to at least two years, and allows Member States to extend it further, depending on the level of risk and the type of prominent public function involved3.

References:

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing

2: Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC

3: Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis

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.

The bank’s internal investigation is aimed at understanding the activities and legitimacy of the client who wants to open multiple accounts for their swimming pool company, with each account assigned to a debit card for the company’s technicians. The purpose of these accounts, as stated by the client, is to facilitate the purchase of pool chemicals. To conduct a thorough investigation, the bank can consider several available sources of information. Let’s analyze each option:

A. Client’s credit bureau report: The client’s credit bureau report primarily contains information related to the individual’s credit history, including loans, credit cards, payment patterns, and any financial obligations. While this information may be useful in assessing the client’s creditworthiness, it may not provide substantial insight into the specific activities and legitimacy of the swimming pool company or the need for multiple accounts.

B. Local law enforcement investigation report: The local law enforcement investigation report may contain information about any criminal or suspicious activities involving the client or the swimming pool company, such as fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, or other offenses. However, this source may not be readily available to the bank, as it may require a formal request or a subpoena to access. Moreover, the report may not be comprehensive or up-to-date, as it may depend on the scope and progress of the law enforcement investigation.

C. Interview swimming pool technicians and chemical suppliers: The interview with the swimming pool technicians and chemical suppliers may provide some information about the nature and frequency of the transactions involving the pool chemicals, such as the amount, the price, the payment method, and the delivery mode. However, this source may not be reliable or verifiable, as the technicians and suppliers may be biased or influenced by the client. Moreover, the interview may not be feasible or practical, as it may require the bank to contact and arrange meetings with multiple parties, which may be time-consuming and costly.

D. Internet search showing how such business are typically operated: The internet search showing how such business are typically operated may provide some information about the industry standards and best practices for running a swimming pool company, such as the average number of technicians, the typical expenses, the common suppliers, and the expected revenue. This source may be useful in comparing and contrasting the client’s business model and operations with the industry norms and identifying any red flags or anomalies. Moreover, this source may be easily accessible and inexpensive, as it may only require the bank to use a web browser and a search engine.

Therefore, the best available source for the bank’s internal investigation on this client’s activities is option D.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS 2: CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS 3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs 4: Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) 5: Bank’s Internal Investigation on Client’s Activities | CAMS Exam Prep 6: South Florida: Couple arrested for more than $2 million fraud 7: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

When implementing a risk-based approach related to casinos, the risks related to the customer as an individual are mainly based on the customer’s profile, behaviour, source of funds, and geographic location. Among the options given, B and D are the most relevant factors that could indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

Casual customers are those who do not have a regular or established relationship with the casino, and who may visit the casino only once or occasionally. They may not provide sufficient or reliable identification information, or may use false or stolen identities. They may also engage in suspicious transactions, such as large cash purchases of chips, minimal or no gaming activity, or frequent transfers of chips between customers. Casual customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they are harder to verify, monitor, and trace by the casino operators.

Customer from a high-risk country is a customer who resides in, or has links to, a country that is subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures, or that is identified by credible sources as having significant levels of corruption, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. Such customers pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing because they may be involved in, or connected to, criminal or terrorist activities, or may be using funds that are derived from or intended for such activities.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Casinos” published by the FATF in October 2008. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the risk-based approach and the customer risks for casinos on the Gambling Commission website and the Exam Answer website.

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 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

 Enhanced due diligence (EDD) is a set of additional measures that must be applied by financial institutions (FIs) in higher-risk situations, such as when dealing with customers or transactions from high-risk third countries, customers who are politically exposed persons (PEPs), or customers who present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. EDD may include obtaining more information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, source of wealth, business relationships, and purpose of the transaction, as well as conducting more frequent and intensive ongoing monitoring of the customer’s activities.

However, EDD may be bypassed for certain situations where the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is low, and where the customer is subject to adequate supervision and regulation in the EU or the US. According to the CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition1, one such situation is when on-boarding a casino that is part of an international hotel chain, provides less than 50% of overall revenue and that fully complies with group-wide policies and procedures. This is because such a casino is likely to have a low risk profile, as it is not the main source of income for the hotel chain, and it adheres to the same standards and controls as the rest of the group. Therefore, EDD may not be necessary for this situation, and the FI may apply simplified due diligence (SDD) instead.

The other situations listed in the question are not eligible for bypassing EDD, as they involve higher-risk factors, such as dealing with customers or entities from high-risk third countries, customers with complex ownership structures, or customers who are PEPs. These situations require FIs to apply EDD measures to mitigate the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 84

White Paper on KYC — Enhanced Due-Diligence, page 2

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence, page 3

Enhanced Due Diligence for High-risk Customers, page 1

A compliance officer should 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

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

References:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS1

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

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

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

A money laundering risk assessment is a crucial component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program. It involves identifying, assessing, and understanding the specific risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing that the institution may face. A risk assessment helps the institution to design and implement appropriate controls, policies, procedures, and training to mitigate the risks. A risk assessment should be updated regularly and whenever there are significant changes in the institution’s business activities, products, services, customers, or geographic locations. In this scenario, the financial institution has experienced significant deficiencies in its AML program during a recent regulatory examination. The deficiencies were primarily attributed to the lack of oversight by the institution’s leadership in implementing adequate controls over the new products and services that were added as part of the institution’s aggressive growth strategy. To correct these weaknesses in the AML program, the leadership should first address the area of international control known as “Money laundering risk assessment” (Option C). By conducting a new and comprehensive risk assessment, the leadership can identify the potential vulnerabilities and gaps in the AML program that may arise from the new products and services. The risk assessment can also help the leadership to prioritize the actions and resources needed to address the deficiencies and enhance the AML program. Once the risk assessment is completed, the leadership can then work on updating the AML policy, providing adequate training, and ensuring sufficient compliance staff to implement and monitor the controls.

References:

1, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments

2, Section 2: Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program

3, Question 145

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), a sound KYC program should contain four essential elements: (i) customer acceptance policy; (ii) customer identification; (iii) on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts; and (iv) risk management1. These elements correspond to the options B in the question, as customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers, risk assessment involves determining the level of risk posed by the customers and their activities, customer screening involves checking the customers against relevant sanctions and watch lists, and monitoring involves reviewing the customers’ transactions and behavior for any anomalies or red flags.

References:

Consolidated KYC Risk Management - Bank for International Settlements

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

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

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

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

The other option is incorrect because:

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

References:

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

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

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.”

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

References:

Investopedia: Bearer Share

SuperMoney: Bearer Shares: Definition, Examples, and Implications

ACAMS: Bearer Shares

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

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.1: Risk-Based Approach, p. 29-30

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

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

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 Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement inquiry, it should cooperate as much as possible and respond to all formal requests for information, unless there is a valid objection that can and should be made1. The institution should also file a suspicious transaction report (STR) if the inquiry or the customer’s activity triggers any red flags or indicators of money laundering or other financial crimes2. Additionally, the institution should monitor the account for suspicious activity and review the money laundering risk posed by the account, as these are part of the ongoing due diligence and risk assessment processes3. Closing the account immediately is not a recommended action, as it may alert the customer or interfere with the investigation4.

References:

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

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 122

3: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 123

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 124

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

References:

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

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

Tracing terrorist finances, INTERPOL

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

OFAC-issued regulations apply to all U.S. persons, including U.S. banks, bank holding companies, and non-bank subsidiaries, regardless of where they are located. This means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks and U.S. branches of a foreign bank are also subject to OFAC compliance. However, intermediaries transacting with U.S. banks, foreign banks with U.S. customers, and foreign import-export companies are not necessarily subject to OFAC regulations, unless they are involved in transactions that involve U.S. jurisdiction or U.S. persons.

References:

Basic Information on OFAC and Sanctions

OFAC Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions

Office of Foreign Assets Control — Overview

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.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets the global standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF). The FATF also monitors the compliance and implementation of its recommendations by its members and other jurisdictions. To enhance its global reach and effectiveness, the FATF works with nine FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) that cover different regions of the world. These FSRBs have similar objectives and functions as the FATF, but they also take into account the specific characteristics and challenges of their regions. Two ways that FSRBs influence AML/CTF standards within their respective regions are:

They issue typologies specific to their geographical region. Typologies are reports or studies that analyze the methods, trends, and patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing in a particular sector, industry, or region. FSRBs produce typologies that reflect the regional context and risks of their members and provide guidance and best practices to address them. For example, the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) has issued typologies on trade-based money laundering, wildlife trafficking, and virtual assets in the Asia-Pacific region12.

They administer mutual evaluations of participating members. Mutual evaluations are peer reviews that assess the level of compliance and effectiveness of a country’s AML/CTF system against the FATF standards. FSRBs conduct mutual evaluations of their members and publish the results and recommendations in detailed reports. These reports help identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CTF regime and provide a basis for follow-up actions and technical assistance. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) has conducted mutual evaluations of its members such as Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago34.

References:

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 27

APG website, section on Typologies

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, page 28

CFATF website, section on Mutual Evaluations

Concentration accounts are internal accounts used by financial institutions to aggregate funds from or for various clients or other accounts. They are also known as omnibus accounts or suspense accounts. The use of concentration accounts may obscure the audit trail and the identity of the clients involved in the transactions. Therefore, the Wolfsberg Principles on Private Banking, which are a set of voluntary guidelines for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing in the private banking sector, prohibit the use of concentration accounts in a way that would prevent appropriate monitoring or identification of the clients or their funds12.

References:

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 4.3 2: The Wolfsberg Principles - an analysis, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 7 No. 3, 2004, pp. 237-240

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

References:

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

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

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

account opening documents and account statements are examples of supporting documentation that can help the law enforcement agency to verify the identity, profile, and activity of the customer involved in the suspicious transaction. These documents can provide useful information such as the customer’s name, address, date of birth, identification number, occupation, source of funds, transaction history, and beneficiaries. These documents can also help to establish the baseline of normal and expected activity for the customer, and to identify any deviations or anomalies that may indicate money laundering, fraud, or other criminal activities.

References:

Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “What Constitutes Supporting Documentation”, paragraph 2: “Supporting documentation may include, for example, transaction records, new account information, tape recordings, e-mail messages, and correspondence.”

Documentation Requirements: Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation, section “SARs Documentation Requirements”, paragraph 2: “Keep all documents with evidence of the background, the purpose of the transactions, the trigger, the investigation carried out, and all findings and conclusions.”

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

A compliance officer should consider the following three factors as part of the approach to implement an enterprise-wide anti-money laundering program for a bank that operates in multiple countries:

The types of customers serviced by the bank: Different types of customers may pose different levels of money laundering risk, depending on their nature, source of funds, geographic location, transaction patterns, and other factors. A compliance officer should identify and assess the money laundering risk associated with each customer type and segment, and apply appropriate due diligence measures, monitoring systems, and risk mitigation strategies accordingly12.

The extent of anti-money laundering regulations in the various countries: A compliance officer should be aware of the legal and regulatory requirements and expectations for anti-money laundering compliance in each country where the bank operates, and ensure that the bank’s policies and procedures are consistent with them. A compliance officer should also monitor any changes or updates in the anti-money laundering laws and regulations in the various countries, and adjust the bank’s program accordingly34.

The anti-money laundering risk posed by the products and services offered by the bank: Different products and services may have different features and functionalities that could be exploited by money launderers, such as anonymity, cross-border transfers, cash transactions, complex structures, or new technologies. A compliance officer should evaluate the money laundering risk associated with each product and service offered by the bank, and implement appropriate controls, safeguards, and oversight mechanisms to prevent and detect money laundering activities5 .

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Risk Assessments

2: FATF, Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: The Banking Sector

3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)

4: Deloitte, AML Program Effectiveness Reform

5: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: AML Program Design

[6]: OCC, Money Laundering: A Banker’s Guide to Avoiding Problems

 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 Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a network of over 160 FIUs that promotes international cooperation and information exchange, FIUs should share information with foreign FIUs spontaneously, without prior request, when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information is relevant for the receiving FIU1. This principle is also reflected in the FATF Recommendation 40, which states that FIUs should exchange information with other FIUs, especially when this information concerns money laundering, predicate offences, or terrorist financing2. Spontaneous information sharing can enhance the effectiveness of FIUs, as it can help to identify new leads, trends, patterns, or typologies, as well as to prevent or disrupt criminal activities1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of FIU information sharing. For example:

In accordance with Wolfsberg guidelines, submit the information to the other FIU in written form. The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that issues guidance and standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. However, the Wolfsberg guidelines are not binding for FIUs, and they do not specify the format or channel of information exchange between FIUs3. Moreover, submitting information in written form may not be the most efficient or secure way of communication, as it may cause delays, errors, or breaches of confidentiality.

Take no action until contacted by the other FIU. This option contradicts the principle of spontaneous information sharing, as it implies that the FIU with the relevant information will wait for a formal request from the other FIU, instead of proactively sharing the information. This may result in missed opportunities, inefficiencies, or failures in detecting or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

Request approval from the Egmont Group prior to sharing the information with the other FIU. This option is unnecessary and impractical, as the Egmont Group does not have the authority or the capacity to approve or deny individual information requests or exchanges between FIUs. The Egmont Group provides a platform and a framework for FIU cooperation, but it does not interfere with the operational autonomy or the bilateral relations of its members4.

References:

FATF Recommendation 40: Other Forms of International Co-operation

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

Wolfsberg Group

Egmont Group

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 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

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?

 According to the AML Directive of the EU, obliged entities, such as banks and other financial institutions, are required to apply enhanced vigilance in business relationships and transactions involving high-risk third countries, which are those identified by the Commission as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regimes1. The types of enhanced vigilance requirements are basically extra checks and control measures which are defined in article 18a of the Directive1. However, these requirements are not exhaustive, and obliged entities should also implement additional mitigating measures that are complementary to the enhanced customer due diligence procedures, in accordance with a risk based approach1. This means that obliged entities should assess the level of risk posed by each customer, product, service, transaction, or delivery channel, and apply appropriate measures to mitigate those risks2. The additional mitigating measures may include, for example, obtaining additional information on the customer and the beneficial owner, applying additional elements of enhanced monitoring, increasing the frequency and intensity of transaction testing, or requiring the first payment to be carried out through an account in the customer’s name with a bank subject to similar customer due diligence standards1.

References:

1: Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (Text with EEA relevance)

2: Guidance on Risk Factors, EBA, 2021

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

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

According to the FATF Recommendation 10, financial institutions should conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions being conducted are consistent with the institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds. This is one of the core measures of customer due diligence (CDD) that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation - The FATF Recommendations” published by the FATF in February 2018. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the CDD measures and the risk-based approach on the FATF website, the CFATF website, the Central Bank of Ireland website, and the Medium blog.

these are the main factors that determine the inherent money laundering risk of a financial institution. The customer base, location, products and services of a financial institution affect the type, volume, and complexity of transactions that it processes, as well as the exposure to high-risk customers, jurisdictions, and activities12. A financial institution should review these factors regularly and conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to identify, measure, and mitigate its money laundering risk34.

References:

Anti Money Laundering Risk Assessment - Financial Crime Academy1

Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) Risk Approach Explained | Okta2

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Risk Assessment | ACAMS4

2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (NMLRA)5

According to Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions that provide correspondent accounts to foreign banks must maintain records of the owners of the foreign banks and the name and address of a U.S. resident authorized to accept service of legal process for records regarding the correspondent accounts. This requirement is intended to prevent foreign shell banks from accessing the U.S. financial system and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing activities involving foreign banks.

References:

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street

Foreign Correspondent Banking Fact Sheet - U.S. Department of the Treasury

FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | FinCEN.gov

According to the third European Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing1, Member States may allow the identity verification of the beneficiary under the policy to be carried out at or before the time of payout or before the beneficiary intends to exercise rights vested under the policy, provided that the following conditions are met:

the beneficiary is identified as a natural or legal person or a legal arrangement, and the verification of the identity is not possible earlier, due to the nature of the product or the transaction;

there is a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, taking into account the type of policy, the product features, the premium amount, and the distribution channel;

the Member States adopt appropriate risk-sensitive measures to prevent the misuse of the policy during the life of the relationship.

This provision is intended to accommodate the specificities of the life insurance sector, where the beneficiary may not be known at the time of the conclusion of the contract, or may change during the life of the policy. However, the Directive also requires that the identity verification of the beneficiary is carried out as soon as possible after the establishment of the business relationship, and that the insurance undertaking applies enhanced customer due diligence measures when the beneficiary is a politically exposed person.

References:

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15) 2

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, the independent testing of an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be conducted by a person who reports directly to the Board of Directors or a Board Committee. This ensures that the person conducting the testing has the necessary authority, independence, and objectivity to evaluate the program’s adequacy and effectiveness, and to report any findings or recommendations to the senior management1. The person conducting the testing should also have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience in the anti-money laundering field, and should be familiar with the institution’s products, services, customers, and risks2.

The other options are not necessarily suitable or qualified to perform the independent testing of an institution’s anti-money laundering program. For example:

A certified specialist in the anti-money laundering field may have the relevant expertise and credentials, but may not have the required independence or reporting line to conduct the testing. For instance, if the certified specialist is an employee of the institution who is involved in the implementation or operation of the anti-money laundering program, then there may be a conflict of interest or a lack of objectivity in the testing process1.

A former anti-money laundering officer from a similar institution may have the relevant experience and background, but may not have the current knowledge or familiarity with the institution’s anti-money laundering program, policies, procedures, or systems. Moreover, the former anti-money laundering officer may have a personal or professional relationship with the institution or its staff, which may compromise the independence or integrity of the testing process1.

A retired government regulator or federal law enforcement officer may have the relevant authority and credibility, but may not have the specific skills or qualifications to conduct the testing. For instance, the retired regulator or law enforcement officer may not be well-versed in the latest anti-money laundering standards, regulations, or best practices, or may not be able to apply them to the institution’s unique risk profile, products, services, or customers1.

References:

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

What Is An AML Compliance Program? | ComplyAdvantage

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

References:

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

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

2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination2

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate information on suspicious or unusual financial activity, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, to relevant authorities. One of their main functions is to disseminate the results of their analysis to law enforcement agencies in a timely manner, so that they can initiate investigations or prosecutions. This is also one of the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body that sets the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) policies and recommendations. The other options are not the primary responsibilities of FIUs, although they may perform them as part of their mandate or in cooperation with other agencies.

References:

What are Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)? | Dow Jones

Financial Intelligence Units: An Overview - IMF

Financial Intelligence Units - Egmont Group

FATF Recommendation 29 - Financial Intelligence Units (page 17)

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 173, “If an independent investigation provides grounds to interview the employee, the employee can be interviewed and, if necessary, terminated, but not advised that he or she is under investigation by law enforcement.” This is because informing the employee of the law enforcement investigation could compromise the integrity of the case and potentially expose the institution to legal liability. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, page 1731

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 2872

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

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

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

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

The other three options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

References:

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

 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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

According to the 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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

FATF Recommendation 11, paragraph 2

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

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

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

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a department of the U.S. Treasury that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC regulations cover all persons and entities within the U.S., all U.S.-domiciled entities and their foreign branches, and all U.S. citizens, wherever located or employed2. These include U.S. banks, U.S. corporations, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, U.S. residents, and U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad3. OFAC regulations do not cover foreign-based entities that have U.S. customers, unless they are owned or controlled by U.S. persons or entities4.

References: 1: Home | Office of Foreign Assets Control 2: eCFR :: 31 CFR Chapter V – Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury 3: FFIEC BSA/AML Office of Foreign Assets Control - Office of Foreign Assets Control 4: Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC): Definition, Sanctions

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

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

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

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

References:

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

the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has the authority to prohibit or reject any trade or financial transactions involving specified countries, entities, and individuals that are subject to U.S. economic sanctions, unless such transactions are authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC. This applies to transactions that occur within the U.S. territory, as well as transactions that involve U.S. persons, U.S. goods, or the U.S. financial system, regardless of where they take place. This is one of the key aspects of OFAC’s extraterritorial reach, which means that OFAC can enforce its sanctions programs beyond the U.S. borders.

References:

Home | Office of Foreign Assets Control, section “Mission”: “The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The Aggressive Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Economic Sanctions: Foreign Company Exposure to OFAC Enforcement, section “A. Bases for OFAC jurisdiction over foreign parties”, paragraph 1: “One key aspect of the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s extraterritorial reach includes the blocking of certain non-United States initiated transactions for or through the United States (U.S.) for benefit of a restricted person or entity.”

The global reach of OFAC sanctions, section “The global reach of OFAC sanctions”, paragraph 1: “OFAC sanctions are trade and economic sanctions administered by The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). They are often intended to have extra-territorial effect, meaning that they apply outside the U.S. territory. In some instances a connection with the U.S. territory is required.”

"Prohibit or reject unlicensed trade and financial transactions with specified countries,

entities, and individuals. "

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

References:

1: UN Sanctions1

2: UN Charter, Chapter VII2

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

 the 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

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

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

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards for suspicious activity reports (SARs) information sharing within a financial group, "Financial institutions should establish adequate procedures to ensure that confidentiality of information is maintained and that information is only used for purposes permitted under national law. Where the parent institution is located in a country that does not permit such sharing, financial institutions should take measures to address this limitation" (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 476). Therefore, financial institutions must establish sufficient safeguards concerning the confidentiality of information shared for AML purposes.

 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are agreements between two or more countries that provide the legal framework for the exchange of information and evidence in criminal and related matters. MLATs enable law enforcement authorities and prosecutors to obtain evidence, information, and testimony abroad in a form admissible in the courts of the requesting state. MLATs also establish the procedures and channels for making and receiving requests for assistance, as well as the grounds and conditions for granting or denying such requests. MLATs are an important tool for international cooperation and information exchange to combat transnational crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, and corruption.

References:

1: Treaties and Agreements - U.S. Department of State

2: Mutual legal assistance treaty - Wikipedia

3: International Exchange of Information Manual - GOV.UK

4: Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters

The FATF measures the effectiveness of a country’s efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing through a process known as mutual evaluation. This process involves peer reviews, where experts from other member countries assess the technical compliance and the effectiveness of a country’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework. The FATF has developed a methodology that identifies 11 key areas, or immediate outcomes, that an effective AML/CTF system should achieve, and uses them as the basis for the mutual evaluation. The FATF publishes the mutual evaluation reports, which provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CTF regime, as well as recommendations for improvement.

References:

1: An effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, FATF, February 2013.

2: Report on the State of Effectiveness and Compliance with the FATF Standards, FATF, June 2021.

3: Financial Action Task Force (FATF) | Meaning, Functions, Impact, Finance Strategists, September 2023.

4: FATF Recommendations, FATF, October 2020.

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.”

 Conducting small cash transactions at multiple locations during the same day is the strongest example of avoiding reporting thresholds. This is a common technique used by money launderers to evade the attention of financial institutions and regulators, who are required to report cash transactions above a certain amount (usually $10,000) to the authorities. By splitting the large sum of money into smaller amounts and depositing them at different branches or ATMs, the money launderer can avoid triggering the reporting requirement and conceal the source and destination of the funds. This practice is also known as smurfing or structuring12.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.2, Structuring and Smurfing

1, Smurfing Money Laundering: Mechanics, Detection, and Prevention

2, AML & eWallets - The Risks & How To Comply | ComplyAdvantage

 Antiques are a potential tool for money laundering because they can be used to conceal, move, and convert illicit funds. Antiques can be of high value and often easily transported across borders, making them attractive for criminals who want to evade detection and reporting. Antiques can also be difficult to value and authenticate, creating a lack of transparency and accountability in the market. Criminals can exploit this to inflate or deflate the prices of antiques, or to use them as collateral for loans or other transactions. Antiques can also be used to layer or integrate illicit funds into the legitimate economy, by selling them through auction houses, dealers, or online platforms.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.

Anti-money laundering and the art and antiquities market - a US and UK perspective, Mishcon de Reya LLP, 2022.

Antiques: an unconventional money laundering tool, The Express Tribune, 2023.

Art and Antiquities an Attractive Market for Money Laundering, FATF Argues, OCCRP, 2021.

This is an emerging risk associated with cyber-enabled fraud because the use of false identities and documents can allow criminals to disguise their activities and evade detection. In such cases, the name and address provided on the account may not match the name and address on the government-issued documentation. This discrepancy can be difficult to detect, making it a potential risk for financial institutions.

The rules imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for legal entities and persons related to the US are:

Nationals of the US must comply with OFAC rules, regardless of where they are located in the world. This means that US citizens, permanent residents, and entities organized under US law are subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, even if they operate or reside outside the US12.

Any foreign corporation is also penalized if it conducts transactions with sanctioned countries under OFAC rules. This means that non-US entities that engage in trade or financial dealings with OFAC-designated countries, entities, or individuals are liable to face civil or criminal penalties, as well as secondary sanctions that could restrict their access to the US market or financial system34.

The other options are not correct, because:

A subsidiary of a legal entity of the US, which is formally registered in a foreign country, is not exempt from OFAC rules. This means that foreign-incorporated entities that are owned or controlled by US persons or entities are also subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are specifically authorized or licensed by OFAC12.

A foreign individual visiting the US for a short vacation is not obligated to follow OFAC rules. This means that non-US persons who are temporarily present in the US are not subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are involved in transactions that have a US nexus or violate other US laws.

The head office of a foreign legal entity which has a branch in the US does not need to comply with OFAC rules. This means that non-US entities that have a presence or operation in the US are not subject to OFAC sanctions and prohibitions, unless they are involved in transactions that have a US nexus or violate other US laws.

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 7, page 147: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 148: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 149: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

 Money laundering has severe social and economic impacts, including increased crime rates, corruption and erosion of public trust. Money laundering fuels criminal activities by providing the necessary financial resources for criminals to continue their operations. As illicit funds circulate within the financial system, they enable the growth of criminal organizations and contribute to an increase in crime rates, including organized crime1. Money laundering also facilitates corruption and undermines public trust in financial institutions and the wider economy. This erosion of public trust is exacerbated by trade-based money laundering, which involves the manipulation of international trade transactions to disguise the origins of illicit funds2. Money laundering also weakens financial institutions by exposing them to reputational, operational, legal and regulatory risks. Money launderers exploit the vulnerabilities of financial systems and compromise their integrity and stability. Money laundering can also distort the allocation of resources, create inflationary pressures, and undermine the effectiveness of monetary policy3.

References:

1: Consequences Of Money Laundering Are: Understanding The Social, Economic, and Penalties Impacts1

2: Consequences of Money Laundering and Financial Crime2

3: Money laundering, its impact and consequences3

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

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 Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study guide, the CCO should advise the manufacturing customer that increased scrutiny of cross-border transfers may lead to delays and caution them to ensure that all necessary documentation is provided in order to facilitate a timely transfer. Additionally, the CCO should recommend that the customer contact the FATF to discuss the possibility of an independent review of the findings, as well as other options to mitigate the potential negative consequences.

Company ownership is held in bearer share form. Bearer share ownership can make it difficult to identify the actual owners of a company and is therefore considered a high risk for money laundering or terrorist financing. Enhanced due diligence measures may include obtaining additional identification and ownership information, conducting more frequent reviews of the account, and monitoring transactions more closely.

 Structuring transactions is a common method of money laundering, where cash deposits or withdrawals are broken down into smaller amounts to avoid reporting or record-keeping requirements. Employees who unintentionally assist customers in structuring transactions may not be aware of the legal and regulatory implications of their actions, or may have been misled or coerced by the customers. Therefore, the most appropriate and proportionate response is to provide remedial training to these employees, to ensure they understand the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, the red flags of suspicious activity, and their reporting obligations. Terminating, contacting law enforcement, or transferring these employees may be excessive, premature, or ineffective measures, depending on the circumstances and the level of involvement of the employees.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 31.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Lesson 2.3: Structuring and Smurfing.

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

 The bank’s reputation is not a valid criterion for filing a SAR/STR, as it is not related to the objective assessment of the suspiciousness of the transaction or the activity. The bank should file a SAR/STR based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and not on the potential impact on its image or reputation. The other options are possible indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing, and could warrant a SAR/STR filing, depending on the context and the risk profile of the customer and the transaction. For example, a large, round number wire to an obscure organization could suggest an attempt to conceal the source or destination of the funds, or to support a criminal or terrorist entity. A beneficiary that is largely unknown or has no apparent connection to the customer could indicate a lack of transparency or a false identity. A customer activity that is unreasonable or inconsistent with the customer’s profile, business, or expected behavior could indicate a deviation from the normal or legitimate purpose of the account or the transaction.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, ACAMS, Chapter 5, page 123

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified, ACAMS

Suspicious Activity Reporting — Overview, FFIEC, page 2

3.2. Basic Structure of an STR or SAR, CBUAE Rulebook, page 1

What is a suspicious activity report?, Thomson Reuters

How to decide if SAR filing is needed, Wipfli

STR (Suspicious Transaction Reports), Ministry of Finance, India

 the U.S. government has the authority to seize and forfeit funds in a correspondent account of a non-U.S. bank if the funds are involved in or traceable to a money laundering offense, regardless of where the offense occurred. This is based on the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded the definition of “proceeds of specified unlawful activity” to include any property that is derived from or traceable to a foreign offense that would be a predicate offense if committed in the U.S12

References: =

1: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 137

2: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Section 319(b)

 Submitting the concern anonymously to the bank’s internal Compliance Hotline is the most appropriate action that a bank CEO’s assistant should take when the bank CEO expenses large sums of money to a charitable organization run by the bank CEO’s direct family member. This is because this action would allow the assistant to report a potential case of fraud, conflict of interest, or misuse of funds without fear of retaliation or reprisal from the bank CEO. The Compliance Hotline is a confidential and secure channel for employees to raise any concerns or suspicions about unethical or illegal activities within the bank. The Compliance Hotline would then forward the concern to the relevant authorities or departments for further investigation and action.

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

The document titled “Anti-Fraud Policy” published by the World Bank Group. You can access it by clicking here. This document states that "The World Bank Group has established a Compliance Hotline to receive reports of suspected fraud or corruption in World Bank Group-financed projects or activities, or in the World Bank Group’s corporate procurement or administrative activities. The Compliance Hotline is available to all staff and external parties, such as contractors, consultants, beneficiaries of World Bank Group-financed projects, and the general public.

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?”

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

References:

FATF Recommendations, Introduction, page 11

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

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

B. An internal auditor with the requisite knowledge and expertise of AML: An internal auditor with sufficient knowledge and expertise in AML regulations and compliance requirements can perform the AML audit.

D. Qualified bank staff if not involved in the AML function being tested: Qualified bank staff who are not involved in the AML function being audited can perform the AML audit.

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

References:

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

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

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

A risk-based compliance program is one that identifies and prioritizes the highest compliance risks to the FI and implements controls, policies and procedures to mitigate them. A data-based option is the most suitable for a risk-based compliance program, as it allows the FI to collect, analyze and monitor relevant data on its customers, transactions, products, services, geographies and other risk factors. A data-based option also enables the FI to measure the effectiveness of its compliance program and adjust it as needed to respond to changing risks and regulatory expectations12.

References:

1: Risk-Based Approach to Compliance Management2

2: A Risk-Based Approach to Regulatory Compliance1

Typical events to identify and investigate potential AML activities include: A) blocked transactions involving individuals included in the Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List; B) internal tips from employees of the bank about potential suspicious activity; and C) alerts triggered by the automated AML monitoring system [1]. Blocked transactions are those which involve individuals included on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List – this is a list maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of individuals who are subject to economic or trade sanctions [1], or who may be involved in money laundering or terrorist activities [2]. Internal tips are those which are provided by employees of the bank who may have observed suspicious activity, or have reason to believe that certain transactions or activities may be related to potential money laundering. Alerts triggered by the automated AML monitoring system are those which are generated by the banks systems and processes which are designed to detect potential money laundering.

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, banks should apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence, which means that they should adopt enhanced measures for higher-risk customers and simplified measures for lower-risk customers. Enhanced due diligence (EDD) may include obtaining additional information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, business activities, beneficial owners, and expected transactions, as well as conducting more frequent and intensive monitoring of the account activity. EDD is especially important for customers who are politically exposed persons (PEPs), who are from or have connections with high-risk countries or jurisdictions, or who are involved in high-risk industries or sectors. Therefore, performing EDD including enhanced ongoing monitoring of the account activity is the correct way for banks to deal with high-risk customers.

References: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121.

 Spear phishing is a targeted form of phishing scam in which cybercriminals send highly convincing emails to specific individuals within an organization. The emails often contain personal information or details that make them seem legitimate and trustworthy. The goal of spear phishing is to trick the recipients into clicking a malicious link or downloading an infected attachment, or to reveal confidential information or money to the attackers. In this case, the customers of the telecommunications firm received an email that pretended to be from the company, but was actually a fake. The email directed them to a spoofed website that asked for their personal information, which could be used for identity theft or fraud. This is a clear example of a spear phishing attack.

References:

What is Spear Phishing? Definition and Prevention | Fortinet

What is spear phishing? Examples, tactics, and techniques | CSO Online

Spear phishing - OxfordDictionaries

Correspondent banking is a service that allows banks to access financial services in different jurisdictions through intermediary banks, known as correspondent banks. Correspondent banking can facilitate cross-border transactions, foreign exchange, and other financial activities for banks and their customers. However, correspondent banking also poses various risks, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, corruption, tax evasion, and sanctions evasion. Correspondent banks may have no direct relationship with the customers of the respondent banks, making it difficult to verify their identity and monitor their transactions. Correspondent banks may also rely on the compliance programs of the respondent banks, which may not meet the standards of the correspondent banks’ jurisdictions.

One of the risk factors that increases the risk for a correspondent bank is being a major service provider to money service businesses (MSBs). MSBs are entities that provide money transmission, currency exchange, check cashing, prepaid cards, and other similar services. MSBs are often considered high-risk customers, because they may serve as conduits for illicit funds, especially if they operate in jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering regulations or oversight. MSBs may also have a large and diverse customer base, making it challenging to conduct customer due diligence and transaction monitoring. Therefore, correspondent banks that provide services to MSBs may face higher exposure to money laundering and other financial crimes, and may need to apply enhanced due diligence and risk mitigation measures.

References:

Understanding Risk in Correspondent Banking

GUIDANCE ON CORRESPONDENT BANKING SERVICES

Correspondent Bank: Definition and How It Works

Correspondent banking – why it’s important to understand the risks

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

References:

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

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

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

According to the CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), page 184, when an FI receives a formal law enforcement request to produce documents, such as a subpoena, a search warrant, or a court order, it should designate a person responsible for the internal investigation in preparation of documents for the request. This person should be familiar with the FI’s policies and procedures, the applicable laws and regulations, and the nature and scope of the request. The designated person should also coordinate with the FI’s legal counsel, compliance officer, and senior management, and ensure that the FI preserves the confidentiality and integrity of the documents and the investigation.

References:

CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), page 1841

CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and monitors compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) measures. The FATF conducts periodic mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their level of implementation of the FATF Recommendations, which are the international AML/CFT standards. The FATF also identifies jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes that pose a risk to the international financial system, and places them on two public lists: the High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action (also known as the black list) and the Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring (also known as the grey list). The FATF works with these jurisdictions to address their deficiencies and monitors their progress through regular follow-up reports and on-site visits. The FATF may remove a jurisdiction from the list if it has made sufficient and sustainable progress in implementing the required reforms and has effectively addressed the identified strategic deficiencies. Therefore, receiving a favorable mutual evaluation is the most likely reason for the FATF to remove a jurisdiction from the list, as it indicates that the jurisdiction has met the FATF standards and has a robust AML/CFT system in place.

Conducting successful annual self-assessments, entering into a mutual legal assistance treaty, or joining the Wolfsberg Group are not sufficient reasons for the FATF to remove a jurisdiction from the list, as they do not necessarily reflect the overall compliance with the FATF Recommendations or the resolution of the strategic deficiencies. Moreover, the Wolfsberg Group is a private association of global banks that develops guidance and best practices for the financial sector on AML/CFT issues, and is not affiliated with the FATF.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, page 11.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 1.4: FATF and the 40 Recommendations.

About the Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories NCCT Initiative, FATF website.

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).

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

References:

1: Deferred Prosecution Agreement - Wikipedia

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

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

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

5: Fines for AML Compliance Failures - ACAMS Today

A. Geographic risks should be used to identify the priority of the Fl in this scenario. According to the CAMS Manual (6th Edition), "Geographic risk refers to the possibility that the location of a customer, transaction, or product may increase the likelihood of money laundering or terrorist financing because of weak or nonexistent AML/CFT controls" (p. 59). In this scenario, the expansion to an area of the world with weak AML laws would increase the Fl's geographic risk.

According to the ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 215, one of the best practices for banks to prevent and detect mortgage fraud is to conduct internal investigations when there are red flags or suspicions of fraud involving bank employees. The investigation should include reviewing the employee’s loan files, interviewing the employee and other relevant parties, verifying the information and documents provided by the employee, and documenting the findings and actions taken. Filing a suspicious activity report (SAR) may be appropriate after the investigation is completed and the bank has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. Filing a police report or initiating civil litigation may also be options depending on the outcome of the investigation and the bank’s policies, but they are not the first steps to take when the bank suspects an employee of mortgage fraud.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 2151

Mortgage Fraud: Understanding and Avoiding It2

Mortgage Fraud: What You Need To Know3

The two red flags indicating potential engagement of a bank employee in money laundering are A. Lavish lifestyle that cannot be supported by an employee's salary, and E. Maintaining friendships with customers and going to restaurants, games, and other events. A bank employee who has a lifestyle that cannot be supported by their salary could be receiving money from illicit activities. Similarly, if the employee is maintaining friendships and going to social events with customers, they could be receiving money in exchange for providing special services. These behaviors should be monitored closely to ensure that the employee is not engaging in activities that could be linked to money laundering.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), FIUs are central agencies that receive, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligence to support the detection and prevention of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes1. FIUs have different legal powers and functions depending on their type and jurisdiction, but generally they can use various investigative techniques, such as requesting additional information from reporting entities, accessing databases, conducting analysis, and issuing guidance12. FIUs also have access to a wide range of financial information, such as suspicious activity reports, currency transaction reports, cross-border cash declarations, and other relevant data sources, to identify and assess potential illicit activities13. Moreover, FIUs can cooperate and exchange information with domestic and foreign counterparts, subject to certain legal and operational safeguards, to facilitate cross-border investigations and prosecutions of financial crimes14.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 5: The Role of the Financial Intelligence Unit in Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, pages 153-1631

What are Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)? | Dow Jones

Financial Intelligence Units - Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism - MONEYVAL - Coe

The role of financial intelligence units in combating money laundering (Chapter 6) - Money Laundering

This information can be found in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) study guide, 6th edition, under the section on Unusual Customer Identification Scenarios. The guide explains that two indicators that should be included in awareness training for unusual customer identification scenarios are:

A. The customer opens the account in the name of a family member who begins making large deposits.

This is an indicator of potential structuring, where a customer may be attempting to avoid triggering reporting thresholds by depositing funds in smaller amounts over time. It is important for staff to be aware of this scenario and to monitor accounts for potential suspicious activity.

B. The customer's name and home address cannot be verified.

This is an indicator of potential identity theft or other fraudulent activity. If a customer's identifying information cannot be verified, it is important for staff to conduct additional due diligence to ensure that the customer is legitimate and that the account is not being used for illicit purposes.

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

References: =

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

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

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are the primary channels for sharing financial intelligence both within countries and across borders. FIUs cooperate with each other and other relevant law enforcement, regulatory, or intelligence agencies in the fight against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other financial crimes.

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

References:

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

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, banks should adopt a risk-based approach to customer due diligence, which includes four essential elements1:

A customer acceptance policy that defines the types of customers that are likely to pose a higher than average risk to the bank.

A customer identification program that collects and verifies information about the customer’s identity, beneficial ownership, and purpose of the account or relationship.

An on-going monitoring of high-risk accounts to detect and report any unusual or suspicious activity, and to keep customer information up-to-date.

A risk management program that ensures that the bank’s policies and procedures are implemented effectively, and that the bank’s staff are trained and aware of their AML/CFT obligations.

Therefore, documenting a customer acceptance policy and establishing on-going monitoring of high-risk accounts are the correct choices for the essential elements that should be included in the program based on Basel’s KYC principles.

References: 1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Customer due diligence for banks, October 2001, page 8.

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

References:

The Aggressive Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Economic Sanctions: Foreign Company Exposure to OFAC Enforcement

OFAC Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions

The global reach of OFAC sanctions

Which three circumstances are U.S. banks required to block 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

The potential client is attempting to commit the illegal activity of using insider information to trade securities. Insider information is any material, non-public information that could affect the price or value of a security, such as earnings reports, mergers, acquisitions, or regulatory actions. Insider trading is the act of buying or selling securities based on insider information, which gives the trader an unfair advantage over other investors who do not have access to such information. Insider trading violates the principles of market integrity, fairness, and transparency, and can undermine investor confidence and trust. Insider trading is also a form of market abuse and financial crime, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 1.3: Financial Crime, Subsection 1.3.3: Market Abuse, pp. 25-26

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 1.3: Financial Crime, Sublesson 1.3.3: Market Abuse, Video Time: 2:00-3:30

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 12, Answer C

 A beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity or arrangement, such as a company, a trust, or a foundation. Identifying the beneficial owner is essential for preventing and detecting money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and other illicit activities that may involve the misuse of corporate vehicles. However, some individuals or entities may attempt to conceal the true beneficial ownership of a company by using various techniques, such as complex ownership structures, shell companies, bearer shares, or nominees. A nominee is a person or an entity that acts on behalf of another person or entity, usually for a fee or a commission, without disclosing the identity of the real owner or controller. Nominees can be used to protect or conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and controller of a company or asset. A nominee can help overcome jurisdictional controls on company ownership and circumvent directorship bans imposed by courts and government authorities. While the appointment of nominees is lawful in most countries, the use of nominees for money laundering purposes is illegal and a red flag for suspicious activity. Therefore, the person filling out an application on the company’s behalf indicating that a beneficial owner is a nominee for another person not named in the company’s documentation is an indicator that there is an attempt to conceal the company’s true beneficial ownership12.

The other options are not necessarily indicators of concealment of beneficial ownership, as they may have legitimate explanations or reasons. The company having a subsidiary in another jurisdiction with a local investor as a beneficial owner may be a normal business practice or a strategic decision, as long as the ownership information is transparent and accurate. Recent changes to the company’s ownership structure may reflect the company’s growth, development, or adaptation to market conditions, as long as they are documented and reported to the relevant authorities. Beneficial ownership information from the time that the company was formed several years ago not matching the current information may be due to natural changes in the company’s shareholders, directors, or managers, as long as they are updated and verified periodically.

References:

Concealment of Beneficial Ownership - Financial Action Task Force

What’s a Beneficial Owner and Why Does it Matter? - Dun & Bradstreet

[ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pp. 171-172]

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is an international body that sets standards and guidelines for the prudential regulation of banks. One of its key publications is the Customer Due Diligence for Banks, which outlines the essential elements of Know Your Customer (KYC) standards for banks. According to this document, customer acceptance, customer due diligence, and record-keeping policies and procedures should be changed as necessary to address variations in risk among each line of business within the organization. This means that banks should adopt a risk-based approach to KYC, taking into account the different types, levels, and sources of risk associated with different customers, products, services, transactions, and delivery channels. By doing so, banks can allocate their resources more efficiently and effectively, and mitigate the potential for money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.

References:

Customer Due Diligence for Banks, BCBS, October 2001, p. 5, 14-15.

The Basel Committee: The Important Set Of International Banking Regulations, Financial Crime Academy, November 2023.

Financial institutions are required by law to maintain records and documentation of customer transactions and to provide this information to law enforcement agencies upon request. However, financial institutions should also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that they comply with legal and regulatory requirements and protect customer privacy. Providing protected documents that are privileged under attorney-client privilege or freezing an account immediately may not be the appropriate response and may expose the financial institution to legal or reputational risks.

Money laundering through real estate transactions involves integrating illicit funds into the legitimate financial system while providing a relatively “safe” property investment. In this context, the most relevant factor to examine is the beneficial owner of the asset. Identifying the true owner behind a property helps uncover potential money laundering schemes. Criminals often use third parties, shell companies, or complex ownership structures to distance the transaction from the source of illicit funds. Investigating the beneficial owner’s identity is crucial for detecting and preventing real estate-related money laundering12.

References:

Understanding money laundering through real estate transactions

What Is Money Laundering? - Investopedia

The red flags that most likely triggered the referral are:

B. Several cash deposits along the country's border that are quickly withdrawn by third parties. C. Several lodging and food payments made on the same day at unusual hours for a business.

Red flag B suggests possible structuring activity, where individuals are trying to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements by depositing and withdrawing cash in amounts below the reporting threshold. This activity is often associated with money laundering and could indicate human trafficking activity.

Red flag C suggests unusual activity that may be indicative of human trafficking, such as lodging and food payments made at unusual hours or in unusual patterns. This type of activity could indicate that the business is being used as a front for human trafficking or that the individuals involved in the trafficking are using the business to facilitate their activities.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), substantial growth in wealth during a short period of time is a red flag for money laundering or terrorist financing. Additionally, when a client is a family member of a politically exposed person (PEP) from a country known for corruption, it raises concerns about the potential for corruption, bribery, or influence peddling. In this case, the client's father became the president of Country B, which makes him a PEP.

When assessing the risk rating of customers, financial institutions should consider various factors that may indicate the potential for money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. According to the ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination1, some of the key risk factors are:

Customer risk: This refers to the characteristics of the customer that may affect their risk profile, such as their identity, occupation, source of funds, business activities, reputation, and political exposure. For example, customers who are politically exposed persons (PEPs), cash-intensive businesses, non-resident customers, or customers with complex ownership structures may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

Geographic risk: This refers to the location of the customer, their business, or their transactions, and the level of risk associated with that location. For example, customers who are based in, operate in, or transact with jurisdictions that have weak anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, high levels of corruption, or are subject to sanctions or embargoes may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

Product risk: This refers to the type of products or services that the customer uses or offers, and the level of risk associated with those products or services. For example, customers who use or offer products or services that are anonymous, complex, or facilitate cross-border transactions may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

Other risk factors that may be considered include transaction risk, delivery channel risk, and industry risk2. However, these are not among the options given in the question.

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

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, Chapter 4, Section 4.1, pages 97-99: “Customer Risk Factors”, “Geographic Risk Factors”, “Product Risk Factors”.

Customer Risk Rating: Connecting Customer Risk Rating With Due Diligence, Section “Customer Risk Rating Factors”: “Transaction Risk Factors”, “Delivery Channel Risk Factors”, “Industry Risk Factors”.

Compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies. This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 595, which states: “Sanctions screening requirements include that a financial institution should compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies.”

The activities that could be considered a potential spear phishing scam are:

A courier delivers a duplicate invoice to a business that contains updated payment details of an existing supplier. This could be a way of diverting funds to a fraudulent account by impersonating a legitimate vendor and exploiting the trust relationship between the business and the supplier1.

Payroll receives an external email from an employee looking to update their bank account information. This could be a way of stealing money from the employee or the employer by pretending to be the employee and requesting a change in the payment method or destination2.

An employee receives an email that asks to download an attachment, but the attachment is a malware. This could be a way of infecting the employee’s computer or network with malicious software that could compromise sensitive data, disrupt operations, or demand ransom3.

The other options are not necessarily spear phishing scams, although they may be other types of fraud or deception. For example:

An employee receives a phone call requesting that money be sent to assist someone in trouble. This could be a vishing scam, which is a form of voice phishing that uses phone calls to solicit personal or financial information or to request money transfers4.

A business sends its employees an email warning that email passwords must be changed to prevent cyber-fraud. This could be a legitimate security measure, or it could be a phishing scam, which is a form of email phishing that targets a broad audience and tries to trick them into revealing their credentials or clicking on malicious links.

Members of a religious organization receive a donation request by email claiming to be from their leader. This could be a genuine appeal, or it could be a social engineering scam, which is a form of manipulation that exploits the human factor and relies on the victim’s emotions, trust, or sympathy.

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 3, page 53: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-3.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, page 54: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-3.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, page 55: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-3.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, page 56: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-3.pdf

According to the USA PATRIOT Act, US authorities do have the power to subpoena records from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks. This is known as a "section 314(a) request," which allows law enforcement to obtain information related to suspected terrorist financing or money laundering.

However, US authorities are not limited to seizing only funds transferred under OFAC sanctions if there is an equivalent UN sanctions regime that has been contravened. The US government can impose its own sanctions that are independent of the UN, and can seize funds or take other actions to enforce those sanctions.

Therefore, the correct answers to the question are A and C:

A. If the funds are seized, then the foreign bank would be within its rights to dispute such seizure. C. The USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General to subpoena records from the foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a US bank.

 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

According to the ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 211, dealers in precious metals and stones (DPMS) are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks due to the high value, portability, and fungibility of their products. Therefore, DPMS should apply a risk-based approach to their AML/CFT compliance program and monitor their customers and transactions for any red flags or suspicious activities. One of the red flags for DPMS is receiving payments from or sending payments to unknown or unverified third parties, especially if they are located in high-risk jurisdictions that have weak AML/CFT controls, are subject to sanctions, or are known to be sources or destinations of illicit funds. Such payments may indicate that the DPMS is being used as a conduit or a front for money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. Therefore, if a precious metals dealer opens a new account with a bank and receives or makes payments that reference unknown companies from high-risk jurisdictions, the bank should refer the account to AML investigations for further review and verification of the source and purpose of the funds, the identity and legitimacy of the third parties, and the nature and rationale of the business relationship.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 2111

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones2

Risk-Based Approach for Dealers in Precious Metals and Stones (DPMS)3

 Correspondent banking is the product type that is subject to US extra-jurisdictional reach over non-US banks and non-US persons under the USA PATRIOT Act. This is because correspondent banking involves the provision of banking services by one bank (the correspondent) to another bank (the respondent) or to the respondent’s customers. Correspondent banking enables cross-border transactions and access to foreign financial systems, but also poses significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks due to the lack of transparency and accountability of the parties involved. The USA PATRIOT Act requires US financial institutions to apply enhanced due diligence measures to correspondent accounts for certain foreign banks, such as those operating under offshore banking licenses, those owned or controlled by foreign governments, or those of primary money laundering concern. These measures include obtaining information about the ownership, management, and anti-money laundering controls of the foreign bank, as well as the identity and activity of the customers using the correspondent account. The USA PATRIOT Act also authorizes the US Treasury to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts for foreign banks that are involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, p. 1611

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Anti-Money Laundering Programs; Special Due Diligence Programs for Certain Foreign Accounts, 31 CFR Part 103, RIN 1506–AA292

U.S. Extra-Jurisdictional Reach under the USA PATRIOT Act - Exam-Answer3

 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 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks1, banks should have policies and procedures to identify and manage high-risk customers, such as those who provide false or incomplete information, have complex or opaque beneficial ownership structures, or are involved in large or unusual transactions. In such cases, banks should apply enhanced due diligence measures, such as obtaining additional information or documentation, verifying the source and purpose of funds, conducting more frequent and intensive monitoring of account activity, and reporting any suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities. Therefore, the best course of action for the bank in this scenario is to implement enhanced due diligence procedures to monitor the account for suspicious activity, as option B suggests. Option A is not recommended, as it would imply that the bank accepts the customer without verifying his identity and background, which would expose the bank to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Option C is not advisable, as it would terminate the relationship without investigating the origin and destination of the funds, which could hinder the efforts of law enforcement agencies to trace and recover illicit assets. Option D is also not appropriate, as it would involve sending a check to a customer whose address and identity are not confirmed, which could facilitate money laundering and fraud.

References:

5: Customer due diligence for banks - Bank for International Settlements, October 2001, pages 8-9, 13-14.

The bank’s current anti-money laundering program is inadequate because it does not include a process for monitoring customer account activity, which is a key component of detecting and reporting suspicious transactions. The fact that the consultant and the bank have mutual clients does not affect the risk rating of those customers, nor does it justify a lower level of scrutiny. The bank should revise its procedures to ensure that it has a comprehensive and risk-based approach to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and reporting.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 67-69.

FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach: Legal Professionals, pp. 10-11, 19-20.

BSA/AML Internal Audit: PwC, pp. 1-2.

These options involve transferring funds to another country, which could indicate cross-border movement of illicit funds, and cashing out winnings in checks under 10,000 USD, which could indicate structuring to avoid reporting thresholds. The other options do not seem as suspicious or relevant to money laundering.

 Structuring is the practice of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid triggering currency transaction reports (CTRs) or suspicious activity reports (SARs) by financial institutions. CTRs are required for cash deposits or withdrawals of more than $10,000 in the United States, and SARs are filed when there is a reasonable suspicion of money laundering or other illicit activity. By making multiple deposits of less than $10,000 at different tellers, the owner of the retail store is attempting to evade the reporting requirements and conceal the source or destination of the funds. This is a common technique used by money launderers in the placement stage of the money laundering process, when they try to introduce illegal proceeds into the financial system. Structuring is illegal under the Bank Secrecy Act and can result in civil and criminal penalties.

References:

6: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 43

1: Structuring Cash Deposits, Withdrawals, & Transactions Risk, Golding & Golding

2: Structuring - Wikipedia

According to the FATF Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons1, financial institutions should assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with a business relationship or transaction with a PEP, their family members and close associates, on a case-by-case basis. This includes obtaining information on the source of wealth and source of funds of the customer and the beneficial owner, as well as conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship. Therefore, the appropriate next step for the analyst is to review the beneficial ownership of the customer to determine if the PEP or any other person poses a higher risk, and to apply additional measures accordingly. Removing the PEP as the authorized signatory, re-categorizing the customer as high-risk, or categorizing the authorized PEP signatory as high-risk are not necessarily required or sufficient steps, as they do not take into account the specific circumstances and risk factors of the customer and the PEP.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

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

How Politically Exposed Persons Put Financial Institutions at Risk

According to the FATF typology report 2000-20011, lawyers can provide a range of functions that can be useful to a potential money launderer, such as:

Creating complex legal arrangements, such as trusts, foundations, or corporations, that can obscure the identity and ownership of the beneficial owners or the origin and destination of the funds.

Buying and selling property, such as real estate, art, or jewelry, that can be used to transfer or store illicit proceeds or to provide a legitimate cover for the source of funds.

Performing financial transactions on behalf of a client, such as opening bank accounts, transferring funds, issuing checks, or exchanging currencies, that can facilitate the movement or concealment of illicit funds.

Providing legal advice, on the other hand, is not a function that can be directly exploited by a money launderer, unless the advice is related to the above functions or to the avoidance or evasion of anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

References:

1: FATF Terrorist Financing Typologies Report - Financial Action Task Force2

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.

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

References:

1: FATF Recommendation 20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions

2: FATF Interpretive Note to Recommendation 20

3: FATF Recommendation 16 - Wire transfers

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

References: =

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

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 145, page 2863

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

 The correct answer is B, because it describes a method of money laundering known as structuring or smurfing. This is when a customer or a group of customers break down large amounts of illicit funds into smaller transactions that are below the reporting threshold, and then send them to another customer or entity, often in another country. This way, they avoid triggering any suspicion or regulatory reporting by the bureau de change or money services business (MSB) that processes the wire transfers. Structuring or smurfing is a common technique used by money launderers to move funds across borders and disguise their origin and destination.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may require further investigation depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option A describes a regular and small wire transfer that may be legitimate, such as a remittance to a family member or a friend. Option C describes a large volume of wire transfers that may be related to a seasonal or business activity, such as a holiday or a trade event. Option D describes a series of small wire transfers that may be coincidental or random, and do not necessarily add up to a significant amount.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, pages 36-37

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

 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

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, the most important question the banker should ask when opening a numbered or alternate name account is who will control the account. This is because such accounts pose a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the identity and beneficial ownership of the funds. Therefore, the banker should perform enhanced due diligence and verify the identity and source of funds of the person who has the authority to operate the account, as well as the purpose and nature of the business relationship12

The other questions are less relevant or secondary to the issue of control. The inheritance of the proceeds in the event of the businessman’s death is a matter of succession law and does not affect the identification of the beneficial owner. The amount of money deposited into the account may indicate the level of risk, but does not reveal the origin or destination of the funds. The account-opening date is a procedural detail that does not affect the compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards12

References:

1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Core principles for effective banking supervision, 2012, Principle 14 and Essential Criterion 14.1

2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, 2014, Paragraphs 30 and 31

A government Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is a national body or agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates information on suspicious or unusual financial activity related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes12. One of the main functions of an FIU is to receive and analyze disclosures or reports filed by financial and non-bank institutions, such as banks, casinos, money service businesses, lawyers, accountants, etc., that are obliged to report transactions or activities that may indicate money laundering or terrorist financing34. Another key function of an FIU is to disseminate the information and the results of its analysis to competent authorities, such as law enforcement, prosecutors, regulators, or other FIUs, for further investigation, prosecution, or preventive action56. These two ways of interaction enable the FIU to act as a bridge between the public and private sectors in the fight against financial crimes.

References: 1: What are Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)?, Dow Jones, 3; 2: Financial Intelligence Unit, Wikipedia, 2; 3: The Role of Financial Intelligence Units in Fighting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, IMF, 8; 4: What is an FIU?, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, [9]; 5: FIU Functions, FATF, [10]; 6: FIU.NET, Europol, [11].