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

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

According to the FATF Recommendations, financial institutions should maintain all necessary records on transactions and customers for at least five years, and make them available to competent authorities upon appropriate authority1. This includes records and documents related to suspicious transactions that have been reported to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) or other designated authorities. Providing the supporting documentation to competent authorities upon request is essential for the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing offences, as well as for the identification and tracing of criminal assets2.

Hinting to the customer that she should come in and explain her behavior is not a correct answer, as it may tip off the customer about the suspicion and compromise the effectiveness of the reporting system. Financial institutions should not disclose to the customer or to third parties that a suspicious transaction report (STR) or related information is being reported to the FIU3.

Maintaining adequate written documentation of all individuals and transactions reported is not a sufficient answer, as it does not imply cooperation with competent authorities. Financial institutions should not only keep records, but also provide them to the authorities when requested.

Submitting information upon receiving a legal request from parties involved in a civil lawsuit is not a relevant answer, as it does not relate to the cooperation with competent authorities for AML/CFT purposes. Civil lawsuits are not part of the AML/CFT framework, and financial institutions should not disclose confidential information to private parties without proper legal grounds.

FATF Recommendation 11: Record-keeping 1

FATF Recommendation 31: Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities 2

FATF Recommendation 21: Tipping-off and confidentiality 3

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 jurisdictionfrom 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.

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.

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.

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.

AML compliancemust be balanced with data privacy laws, includingGDPR (EU), CCPA (U.S.), and banking secrecy regulations.

Option A (Correct):FIUsmust documentwhy and how personal data in SARs is shared with law enforcement or regulators.

Option B (Incorrect):SAR subjects cannot request redaction—SARs are confidential to avoid "tipping off" the suspect.

Option C (Incorrect):Many jurisdictions allow AML-related information sharing, particularlyunder FATF guidance.

Option D (Incorrect):SARsdo not require customer consent—they are filed based on legal obligations.

Key Data Privacy Considerations in AML Investigations:

GDPR Article 6permits data processing for AML compliance.

Banking secrecy laws have exemptions for AML disclosures.

FIUs must document SAR handling procedures for legal compliance.

Best Practices for Managing Data Privacy in AML:

Limit data collection to what is necessary for AML compliance.

Ensure SAR information is only shared with authorized agencies.

Comply with local and international data privacy laws.

 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.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, ongoing training is a key element of an effective anti-money laundering compliance program, as it ensures that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the latest regulatory developments, and the emerging risks and trends in money laundering and terrorist financing1. Ongoing training also helps to foster a culture of compliance within the institution, where the staff are committed to adhering to the policies and procedures, detecting and reporting suspicious activities, and protecting the institution from reputational and legal damages2.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.5, page 53

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.6, page 54

 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.

Investopedia: Bearer Share

SuperMoney: Bearer Shares: Definition, Examples, and Implications

ACAMS: Bearer Shares

The company regularly understating the value of goods exported is an indicator of possible money laundering because it may suggest that the company is involved in trade-based money laundering (TBML), which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions in an attempt to legitimise their illicit origins or finance their activities. One of the common TBML techniques is over-invoicing or under-invoicing, which involves manipulating the price, quantity or quality of goods or services in order to transfer value between the importer and exporter. By understating the value of goods exported, the company may be transferring funds to a foreign counterpart who is either a co-conspirator or a third-party money launderer, who will then pay the company the difference in cash or through other means. This way, the company can avoid currency reporting requirements, evade taxes, conceal the source and destination of funds, and integrate the illicit proceeds into the formal economy.

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

Trade-Based Money Laundering: Trends and Developments, FATF-Egmont Group, December 2020, page 282

Trade-Based Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Global Investigations Review, September 20233

When onboarding a corporate customer, financial institutions mustconduct due diligence to assess potential AML risks.

Option A (Correct):Understanding thenature of the businesshelps identifyhigher-risk industries(e.g.,casinos, cryptocurrency exchanges, cash-intensive businesses).

Option D (Correct):Identifyingsenior managing officials and account signatorieshelps verify thetrue control and ownership of the company.

Option E (Correct):Jurisdictional risk assessmentis key, especially if the company is from aFATF-listed high-risk country.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Theemployment profiles of all employeesarenot relevantunless they have adirect role in financial transactions.

Option C (Incorrect):A company'sbanking history is not always relevant, unless there arered flags of prior financial crime involvement.

Best Practices for Corporate Customer Onboarding:

Verify beneficial ownership structuresto detect potential shell companies.

Conduct enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk industries and jurisdictions.

Ensure ongoing monitoring of corporate customers.

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, the risk of a correspondent bank customer depends on various factors, such as the nature of the customer’s business, the customer’s location, the products and services offered, the customer’s ownership and management structure, and the customer’s customer base1. Among these factors, two that should increase the risk and require additional due diligence are:

The customer is located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country and the bank’s head of information security is a politically exposed person (PEP). A PEP is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, such as a senior government official, a judicial or military officer, a senior executive of a state-owned corporation, or a political party leader2. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds3. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that has a PEP in a key position should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as verifying the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, and the PEP’s reputation and integrity4.

The customer is located in a non-FATF member country and services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade. A non-FATF member country is a country that is not part of the FATF, 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 system5. Non-FATF member countries may have weaker or less consistent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and may pose a higher risk of financial crime or sanctions evasion6. Moreover, a correspondent bank customer that services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade may be exposed to trade-based money laundering, which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions7. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that operates in a non-FATF member country and deals with international trade should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as obtaining information on the nature and volume of the trade transactions, the origin and destination of the goods, and the identity and reputation of the trade counterparties8.

The other options are not correct because they do not necessarily increase the risk of a correspondent bank customer or require additional due diligence. A customer that is located in a FATF member country and provides services primarily to a local individual customer may pose a lower risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, as the customer’s activities are subject to the FATF standards and recommendations, and the customer’s customer base is less likely to involve complex or cross-border transactions. A customer that is located in a FATF member country and provides services to other correspondent banks in neighboring countries may also pose a lower risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, as the customer’s activities are subject to the FATF standards and recommendations, and the customer’s customer base is composed of regulated financial institutions that are subject to their own anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations.

nswer:BD

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, the risk of a correspondent bank customer depends on various factors, such as the nature of the customer’s business, the customer’s location, the products and services offered, the customer’s ownership and management structure, and the customer’s customer base1. Among these factors, two that should increase the risk and require additional due diligence are:

The customer is located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country and the bank’s head of information security is a politically exposed person (PEP). A PEP is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, such as a senior government official, a judicial or military officer, a senior executive of a state-owned corporation, or a political party leader2. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds3. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that has a PEP in a key position should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as verifying the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, and the PEP’s reputation and integrity4.

The customer is located in a non-FATF member country and services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade. A non-FATF member country is a country that is not part of the FATF, 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 system5. Non-FATF member countries may have weaker or less consistent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and may pose a higher risk of financial crime or sanctions evasion6. Moreover, a correspondent bank customer that services mostly commercial customers who engage in international trade may be exposed to trade-based money laundering, which is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value through the use of trade transactions7. Therefore, a correspondent bank customer that operates in a non-FATF member country and deals with international trade should be subject to enhanced due diligence, such as obtaining information on the nature and volume of the trade transactions, the origin and destination of the goods, and the identity and reputation of the trade counterparties8.

https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs85.pdf - page 12

Banks should gather sufficient information about their respondent banks to understand fully the nature of the respondent’s business. Factors to consider include: information about the respondent bank’s management, major business activities, where they are located and its money-laundering prevention and detection efforts; the purpose of the account; the identity of any third party entities that will use the correspondent banking services; and the condition of bank regulation and supervision in the respondent’s country. Banks should only establish correspondent relationships with foreign banks that are effectively supervised by the relevant authorities. For their part, respondent banks should have effective customer acceptance and KYC policies.

it describes the action that the anti-money laundering specialist should take next, which is to consult with senior management and the legal advisor. This is because the specialist needs to seek guidance and approval from the higher authorities and the legal experts on how to handle the situation without compromising the ongoing criminal investigation or violating the anti-money laundering laws and regulations. The specialist also needs to ensure that the institution’s internal policies and procedures are followed andthat the appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the risks and protect the reputation of the institution.

The other options are not necessarily actions that the anti-money laundering specialist should take next, although they may be considered or implemented later depending on the outcome of the consultation and the investigation. Option A describes a possible consequence for the employee, which is to recommend the immediate termination of the employee, but this may not be the best course of action at this stage, as it may alert the employee or the dealer of the investigation, or it may be premature or disproportionate without sufficient evidence or due process. Option B describes a possible measure for the dealer, which is to advise that the dealer’s accounts should be closed, but this may not be feasible or advisable at this stage, as it may also tip off the dealer or the employee of the investigation, or it may interfere with the collection of evidence or the prosecution of the case. Option D describes a possible reporting obligation for the institution, which is to inform the institution’s regulatory agency of the situation, but this may not be required or appropriate at this stage, as it may conflict with the instructions of the competent authority or the confidentiality of the investigation, or it may expose the institution to legal or regulatory liabilities or sanctions.

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 6, pages 132-133

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

 According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the red flags for money laundering is the transfer of large sums of money to or from high-risk jurisdictions, especially if the transactions are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity. Large payments to a beneficiary in a high-risk jurisdiction may indicate that the originator is involved in illicit activities such as tax evasion, fraud, corruption, or terrorism financing. Therefore, such payments should be escalated for further investigation and reporting1

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

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

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

From Microsoft Start Partners

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

-A is the primary correspondent bank.

-B is the respondent bank.

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

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

TheEgmont Groupis aninternational network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)thatenhances cooperation and information sharing to combat financial crime.

Option A (Correct):The Egmont Groupimproves global cooperationby enabling FIUsto exchange financial intelligence securely.

Option C (Correct):Thegroup facilitates secure communication channelsforsharing money laundering and terrorist financing intelligence.

Option E (Correct):TheEgmont Group fosters trust between FIUs, allowing them to work collaborativelyon cross-border investigations.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not negotiate case-by-case memoranda of understanding (MoUs)for individual cases.

Option D (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not draft AML legislation; itprovides guidance but does not have regulatory authority.

Key Functions of the Egmont Group:

Facilitating cross-border cooperation among FIUs.

Providing a secure network (Egmont Secure Web) for intelligence sharing.

Developing best practices for AML/CFT investigations.

When assessing and managing money laundering risks while operating in foreign jurisdictions different from that of the head office, an effective AML monitoring program should conform to the foreign jurisdiction policies to align with the head office policies. This ensures that the organization's AML/CFT risk management remains consistent across all jurisdictions, while allowing local compliance staff to assess and manage the risks specific to their jurisdiction. Additionally, the program should be tailored to the higher of standards between the jurisdictions, and should be consistent with the head office audits. Providing all foreign jurisdiction reports to the head office for approval is not necessary, as long as the program is consistent with the head office policies.

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.

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

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is authorized under the UN Charter to imposebinding sanctions measureson member states. These sanctions may target countries, entities, or individuals and can include arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, and restrictions on trade or financial services.

Statement Ais correct:

Circumventing or evading UNSC sanctionsmay constitute a criminal offenseif the jurisdiction has incorporated UN obligations into domestic law. While the UNSC does not directly impose criminal penalties,member states must implement these measures locally, andmany jurisdictions have lawsthat make such violations criminal acts.

Statement Bis incorrect:

The UNSC is empowered toimpose broad restrictions, includingtrade bans beyond arms, such as on luxury goods, fuel, or specific commodities. Therefore, the idea that it cannot prohibit exports beyond arms is inaccurate.

Statement Cis correct:

Member countries of the United Nations are expected to implement and enforce UNSC sanctions, in accordance with their obligations under the UN Charter (specifically Chapter VII). Countries are responsible for transposing these sanctions into their national legal frameworks.

Statement Dis incorrect:

Although member countries are required to enforce sanctions,not all countries automatically consider breaches a criminal offense. Whether a violation is criminal depends on how each country enacts UN sanctions domestically.

Assessing AML/CFT is an ongoing and evolving component of maintaining a compliant AML/CFT program. Evaluating the risk-scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every 18 to 24 months, before the launch of a new product or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

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

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

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

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

A large cash deposit is a red flag for money laundering when it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile, behavior, or business activity. A customer who has never conducted a transaction in cash before may be trying to avoid detection or conceal the source of the funds. A customer who transacts in segments smaller than the reporting thresholds at various times during the day may be engaging in structuring or smurfing, which are techniques to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. A customer who follows a large cash deposit with an immediate wire transfer to an offshore secrecy haven may be attempting to layer or move the funds to a jurisdiction with weak anti-money laundering controls or high confidentiality. These scenarios indicate a high risk of money laundering and warrant further investigation and reporting.

A customer who operates a cash-based business may have a legitimate reason to make a large cash deposit, depending on the nature and scale of the business. However, this does not mean that the customer is exempt from scrutiny or monitoring, as cash-based businesses are also vulnerable to money laundering abuse. The bank should verify the source and purpose of the funds, and compare the deposit with the customer’s expected activity and turnover.

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

Warning signs of money laundering | The Law Society, Section: Cash deposits and withdrawals.

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

Financing terrorism generally refers to providing money or other support, such as personnel or technology, to terrorist activities. This can include providing funds to terrorist networks, providing services to support terrorist operations, and providing resources to support terrorist activities. In this case, paying producers and reporters for television and web messaging would be considered financing of terrorism, as it is providing support for terrorist activities.

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 andforeign counterparts, subject to certain legal and operational safeguards, to facilitate cross-border investigations and prosecutions of financial crimes14.

According to the Wolfsberg Principles on Private Banking, the bank should apply additional diligence to customers who present a higher risk of money laundering or other financial crimes. Some of the indicators for defining such customers are:

Persons residing in or having funds from countries with inadequate AML standards, sanctions, embargoes, or other measures that indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing12.

Persons engaged in business activities known to be susceptible to money laundering, such as cash-intensive businesses, gambling, arms trade, precious metals and stones, art and antiquities, etc13.

Persons determined to be Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), who are individuals who hold or have held positions of public trust or influence, or their family members or close associates, and who may pose a higher risk of corruption, bribery, or abuse of power14.

Persons who receive funds from a correspondent banking relationship are not necessarily required additional diligence, unless they fall under any of the above categories or other risk factors. Correspondent banking is a service provided by one bank to another bank to facilitate cross-border transactions, and it is subject to its own set of AML standards and due diligence measures5.

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

FATF High-Risk and Other Monitored Jurisdictions

FATF Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Vulnerabilities of Legal Professionals

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

FATF Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services

Money Services Businesses (MSBs)are commonly recognized by regulatory and supervisory authorities as havinghigher inherent AML/CFT risk, particularly due to certain business characteristics.

Option B – The prevalence of international wire transfers:

MSBs often facilitatecross-border transactions, which present a higher money laundering and terrorist financing risk due to challenges in verifying customer identity, the origin of funds, and the end destination—especially when dealing with higher-risk jurisdictions.

Option D – The cash-intensive nature of the services offered:

Many MSBs deal primarily incash, which increases the risk ofanonymous transactionsandfunds layering, making it harder to trace illicit activity. Cash is the most vulnerable medium for placement of illicit funds into the financial system.

Option AandOption E, while involving modern technologies,can actually reduce riskwhen implemented with proper controls (e.g., secure digital onboarding and traceable payments enhance auditability).

Option Cdoes not in itself signal high AML risk unless combined with other red flags.

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.

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 Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a country's financial intelligence unit (FIU) plays a key role in safeguarding against money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the main functions of an FIU is to receive, analyze, and disseminate suspicious activity reports (SARs) submitted by financial institutions and other obligated entities. By analyzing SARs, an FIU can identify trends, patterns, and other intelligence related to money laundering and terrorist financing, which can assist in the pursuit of criminal activity. While an FIU may also generate currency transaction reports (CTRs) or other types of financial reports, these functions are not specific to safeguarding against money laundering and terrorist financing. Similarly, while monitoring monthly public statistics on the economy may be an important aspect of macroeconomic analysis, it is not a specific role of an FIU in safeguarding against money laundering and terrorist financing.

The primary responsibility of a financial intelligence unit is to act as an intermediary between the entities subject to money laundering obligations and law enforcement agencies. Financial intelligence units are responsible for receiving and analyzing suspicious activity reports (SARs) from entities subject to money laundering obligations, and then forwarding relevant information to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the financial intelligence units are responsible for providing expertise to Egmont working groups to help develop new techniques to detect and prevent money laundering.

The CAMS 6th Edition highlights that a risk-based approach enables organizations to efficiently allocate compliance resources, focusing efforts on areas presenting the highest risk, thereby ensuring both regulatory compliance and operational effectiveness.

“A risk-based approach allows firms to concentrate resources and controls where the risk of ML/TF is highest, while applying simplified measures to lower-risk areas. This enhances both effectiveness and efficiency.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, AML Compliance Program: Risk-Based Approach)

Incorrect Options:

A: Cost savings may occur, but it is not the main advantage.

B: Audits may still be required, just less frequently for low-risk customers.

D: Risk-based approaches are tailored, not standardized, across regions.

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

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the only body with the legal authority under international law to impose binding sanctions on countries, entities, or individuals.

“The Security Council’s primary function in imposing sanctions is to maintain or restore international peace and security. These sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: International Sanctions and Proliferation Financing; United Nations Charter, Article 41)

Incorrect Options:

B: Sanctions may address AML/CFT failings, but the core mandate is international peace/security.

C: The UNSC does not primarily conduct research or impact analysis.

D: The purpose is international peace/security, not only domestic financial stability.

According to the FATF Recommendation 40, which sets the standards for international cooperation in relation to money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing, countries should ensure that exchanged information is used only for the purpose for which it was sought or provided, and that any dissemination or use of the information beyond the original scope is subject to prior authorization by the requested competent authority. Moreover, countries should have safeguards in place to ensure that the information exchanged is protected in a manner that is consistent with the way they protect their own information of a similar nature. One of the possible safeguards is to require the use of non-disclosure agreements or other legal instruments to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure of the exchanged information.

= FATF Recommendation 40, Section A.3; Compliance Trends: AML Information Sharing, Section: Cross-border AML information sharing; Safeguarding AML Information Exchanged with Other Countries, Section: Answers.

An offshore company is a legal entity that is incorporated or registered in a foreign jurisdiction, usually with low or no taxes, high confidentiality, and minimal regulation1. Offshore companies are often used to hide beneficial ownership, as they can create complex and opaque structures that obscure the identity and control of the real owners and beneficiaries of the assets or transactions involved2. Offshore companies can also use nominee directors and shareholders, trust and company service providers, and shell companies to further conceal beneficial ownership3. According to the web search results, offshore companies are among the most common vehicles for money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, and other illicit activities4 .

1: What is an offshore company? - ACAMS

2: Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership - FATF

3: Concealment of Beneficial Ownership - FATF-Egmont Group

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

The Panama Papers: Exposing the Rogue Offshore Finance Industry - ICIJ

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

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.2: Customer Due Diligence, p. 33-34

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

Customer due diligence | The Law Society

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the FATF mutual evaluation process is a peer review mechanism that assesses the level of compliance of a country with the FATF 40 recommendations and the effectiveness of its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing system. The mutual evaluation report identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the assessed country and provides recommendations for improvement. The assessed country needs to address the shortcomings identified in the report and agree to post-assessment monitoring by FATF, which involves regular follow-up reports and actions to remedy the deficiencies. The other options are not correct, as they do not reflect the FATF mutual evaluation process or the obligations of the assessed country.

The compliance officer should inform the bank’s legal counsel and follow their instructions when informed of the regulator’s notice. This is the most prudent and professionalcourse of action, as it ensures that the compliance officer acts in accordance with the bank’s policies and procedures, as well as the applicable laws and regulations. The compliance officer should also document the communication and cooperation with the legal counsel and the regulator, and preserve all relevant records and evidence relating to the matter. The compliance officer should not take any action that could compromise the integrity or confidentiality of the investigation, such as destroying records, insisting on the president’s resignation, or informing the president of the suspicions.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 47

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 2, Task 2.4

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.4

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 337

Private investment companies (PICs) are potentially vulnerable to money laundering due to the difficulty in identifying the ultimate beneficial owners. PICs are often used to hold and manage private wealth, making them attractive targets for money launderers. Since these entities are privately held and not publicly traded, it can be challenging to identify the individuals whoultimately control or benefit from them. This makes it easier for money launderers to use them to disguise the origins of illicit funds.

An anti-money laundering officer should coordinate with human resources when implementing a new hire screening program, because human resources is responsible for managing the recruitment, hiring, and training of employees, as well as ensuring compliance with labor laws and regulations. A new hire screening program is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program, as it helps to prevent the hiring of individuals who may pose a risk of facilitating money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes, or who may have a criminal or disciplinary history that could compromise the integrity of the institution. A new hire screening program should include background checks, verification of credentials and references, and assessment of skills and competencies relevant to the AML function. An anti-money laundering officer should work closely with human resources to establish the criteria, procedures, and documentation for the screening program, as well as to monitor its implementation and effectiveness.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Developing an AML Program, Lesson 4.2: Developing an AML Program

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 4: Developing an AML Program, Section 4.2: Developing an AML Program, pp. 81-82

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 4: Developing an AML Program, Section 4.2: Developing an AML Program, Slide 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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, C, D:

“Trust and asset management services can facilitate the concealment of the source of funds (A), provide a layer of anonymity to transactions (C), and obscure the true legal and beneficial owners (D). These are well-established ML/TF risks in the private wealth sector.”(CAMS 6th Edition, ML/TF Risks in Trust and Asset Management)

B and E are normal aspects of asset management and are not in themselves ML/TF risks unless combined with other suspicious behaviors.

The compliance officer should recommend an audit for cash transactions since the last compliance review, as this would help to identify the extent of the problem, the root causes, and the potential risks involved. The audit would also provide evidence for corrective actions and remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of non-compliance. The compliance officer should not recommend terminating or suspending the teller’s employment, as this would be premature and disproportionate without a thorough investigation and due process. The compliance officer should not recommend formally reprimanding the branch manager, as this would not address the underlying issues and could create a hostile work environment.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 1251

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 12

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 5, Task 33

D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 7, pages 154-155

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

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 oropaque 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.

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

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

Wire Stripping in Anti Money Laundering Parlance

Wire Transfer Red Flags: Understanding Money Laundering and Fraud Risks

Wire Stripping

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.

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.

The correct answer is B, C, and E, as these three present the highest anti-money laundering or sanctions risk and will require controls prior to launch. According to the FATF Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers1, P2P transactions pose significant challenges for AML/CFT compliance, as they may involve anonymous or pseudonymous parties, cross-border transfers, real-time settlement, and limited information on the beneficiaries. These factors increase the risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, as well as the difficulty of detecting and reporting suspicious activity. Therefore, the institution should implement appropriate controls to mitigate these risks, such as:

Conducting enhanced due diligence on customers who use the P2P service, especially if they are located in high-risk jurisdictions or are involved in high-risk activities1.

Implementing transaction monitoring systems that can identify and flag unusual or suspicious patterns of behavior, such as large or frequent transfers, transfers to or from sanctioned entities or countries, or transfers that do not match the customer’s profile or expected activity12.

Applying the travel rule, which requires the originator and beneficiary VASPs (or financial institutions) to exchange and retain information on the parties involved in the transfer, such as their names, account numbers, addresses, and national identification numbers13.

Establishing information-sharing and cooperation mechanisms with other VASPs, financial institutions, and regulators, to facilitate the exchange of relevant data and intelligence on P2P transactions and customers14.

 1: Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers - FATF, page 13-16, 28-29, 32-33, 40-412: AML and Compliance Solution for The P2P Industry - Sanction Scanner3: P2P Money Laundering: How to Comply - ComplyAdvantage4: 2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment - U.S. Department of the Treasury, page 17.

Anenterprise-wide risk assessment (EWRA)must beupdated when major changesoccur thatimpact AML risk exposure.

Option A (Correct):New products and services(e.g., cryptocurrency trading, private banking)can introduce new money laundering risks.

Option B (Correct):Restructuring compliance teams can impact AML oversightand risk assessment effectiveness.

Option E (Correct):Mergers and acquisitionsmay bringlegacy compliance issues and different risk cultures.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option C (Incorrect):Changes in product leadership do not automatically change risk exposureunless the product itself changes.

Option D (Incorrect):Using new technology for existing products does not inherently change AML risks, thoughnew digital products might.

Best Practices for Enterprise-Wide AML Risk Assessment Updates:

Review AML program effectiveness before launching new services.

Assess legacy compliance issues when acquiring or merging with another entity.

Align risk frameworks with regulatory changes.

All of the three options reflect money laundering risk indicators in relation to a securities account, as they could suggest attempts to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds, or to avoid detection or reporting by authorities. According to the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Securities Sector1, some of the common indicators of money laundering in securities transactions include:

A high level of activity in securities accounts inconsistent with the customer’s profile or investment objectives

Frequent or large movements of funds between accounts or institutions, especially involving high-risk jurisdictions or offshore locations

Use of debit cards or other payment instruments to access funds from securities accounts

Use of complex or unusual transactions or structures without apparent economic or legal purpose

 1 FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Securities Sector, pages 43-44.

Accounts may beclosedif theypose high money laundering or sanction risks.

Option A (Correct):MultipleSAR filingsindicatehigh risk, possibly requiringaccount closureif AML concerns persist.

Option B (Incorrect):Tuition paymentsare alegitimate purposefor fund transfers.

Option C (Incorrect):Indirect dealings withSDNs require compliance review, but notimmediate account closure.

Option D (Incorrect):Civil subpoenasalone do not justifyaccount termination.

The Belgian bank should freeze the assets of the customer and report to OFAC, as this is the required action for any US person or entity, or any person or entity within the US, that holds or controls property or interests in property of a person or entity on the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). The SDN List is a list of individuals and entities that are subject to US sanctions and whose assets are blocked by OFAC. The Belgian bank, by maintaining a branch in New York, is subject to the jurisdiction and authority of OFAC, and must comply with its regulations and directives. Allowing transactions, closing the account, or continuing business as usual would violate the sanctions and expose the bank to civil and criminal penalties.

Economic sanctionsare used as anon-military toolto enforceforeign policy and national security objectives.

Option D (Correct):Sanctions aim tochange the behaviorof entities engaged inmoney laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities.

Option A (Incorrect):Sanctions do not necessarily indicatemilitary action.

Option B (Incorrect):NGOs may be exempt from sanctions, but this is not their primary purpose.

Option C (Incorrect):Whilehuman rights concernscan lead to sanctions, they are primarily imposed tochange behavior.

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 businessrelationship 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.

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

When an existing customer becomes a politically exposed person (PEP), the KYC analyst should perform enhanced due diligence (EDD) for that customer. EDD involves gathering additional information about the customer, assessing the risk associated with their PEP status, and updating the KYC profile accordingly. The goal is to ensure compliance with regulations, verify customer identities, and mitigate the higher risk posed by PEPs. Regular monitoring and updates during the review/refresh period are essential to stay informed about any changes in the customer’s status or risk profile1.

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

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

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

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

A: “Effective training includes practical examples and use cases tailored to the business.”

B: “Firms must keep accurate records of all AML/CFT training, including completion logs.”

D: “Staff should be aware of the consequences of non-compliance with AML/CFT obligations.”(CAMS 6th Edition, AML/CFT Training and Awareness)

Incorrect:

C: Training should be tailored and role-specific.

E: Third-party trainers are not required for effective training.

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 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, andprovide 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 andfactual information, but this is not an action they should take when submitting a request, but rather when responding to a request from another FIU12.

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Operational Guidance for FIU Activities and the Exchange of Information

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

A 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.

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)

TheBasel Committee’s AML guidelinesemphasizerisk-based customer due diligence (CDD) and beneficial ownership transparency.

Option A (Correct):CDD policies must be risk-basedto applyenhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customersandsimplified due diligence (SDD) for low-risk customers.

Option C (Correct):Banksmust verify the identity of customers and beneficial ownersto prevent financial crime risks.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Numbered accountsare not strictly prohibitedbut requirestrict transparency and due diligence measures.

Option D (Incorrect):CDD proceduresmust be risk-based, not uniform across all customers.

Option E (Incorrect):Transactionsshould not be processed until full due diligence is completed, except in rare cases where regulatory exceptions apply.

Best Practices for Risk-Based Customer Due Diligence:

Apply EDD for high-risk entities (e.g., PEPs, offshore companies).

Ensure full beneficial ownership transparency.

Implement ongoing transaction monitoring for risk assessment.

The principles of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FILLs) aimed at maximizing cooperation between FILLs to more effectively combat money laundering are[1]:

B. Information exchange should take place informally, without too many formal prerequisites. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 55)

E. It is within an FlU's authority to sign Memorandums of Understanding independently. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 56)

'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 procedures 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.

One of the most common methods of money laundering in the insurance industry is to purchase a policy with illicit funds and then request a refund of the premiums, either partially or fully, before the policy matures. This way, the money launderer can receive a legitimate payment from the insurance company, effectively washing the dirty money. This technique is also known as premium fraud or early surrender12

According to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the most significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the insurance industry are found in life insurance and annuity products, because such products allow a customer to place largeamounts of funds into the financial system and seamlessly transfer such funds to disguise their true origin34

Some indicators of potential money laundering through insurance products are: 12

The customer pays the premiums with cash, cashier’s checks, money orders, or other anonymous or unusual payment methods.

The customer overpays the premiums or makes multiple payments in excess of the required amount.

The customer cancels the policy during the free-look or grace period and requests a refund to a different account or a third party.

The customer purchases a policy that is inconsistent with their income, age, or risk profile.

The customer shows little interest in the benefits or terms of the policy, but is more concerned about the cancellation or surrender options.

1: AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, ComplyAdvantage, 2022

2: Anti Money Laundering (AML) In Insurance Industry In 2021, Financial Crime Academy, 2023

3: Money laundering in the insurance industry, Insurance Commission, 2022

4: Money laundering in the insurance industry, Atty. Dennis B. Funa, Business Mirror, 2016

[5]: Anti-Money Laundering Requirements: FAQs for Insurance Companies, FinCEN, 2005

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

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.

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

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001, is a comprehensive legislation that aims to enhance the US government’s ability to combat terrorism, money laundering, and other criminal activities. One of the aspects of the Act that has extraterritorial reach is the requirement for US financial institutions (FIs) to apply certain due diligence and reporting obligations to their correspondent accounts and private banking accounts for foreign FIs and non-US persons, respectively12. These obligations are intended to prevent foreign FIs and individuals from using the US financial system to facilitate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose special measures, such as recordkeeping, reporting, or prohibitions, on certain foreign jurisdictions, FIs, or transactions that are found to be of primary money laundering concern34. These special measures can have significant impact on the access and operations of foreign FIs and persons in the US financial market.

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, Section 3121

2: 31 CFR 1010.610 - Due diligence programs for correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions2

3: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, Section 3113

4: 31 CFR 1010.651 - Imposition of special measure against foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions, classes of international transactions, or types of accounts of primary money laundering concern4

In anEnterprise-Wide Risk Assessment (EWRA),residual riskis the level of risk that remains after applying mitigating controls to theinherent risk(the risk present before controls are applied).

In this scenario, theinherent risk is highdue to the nature of private banking—high net worth clients,cross-border transactions,complex ownership structures, andhigh-value financial products. However, the institution has implementedrobust CDD and EDD, as well asadvanced transaction monitoring systems.

According to the CAMS Study Guide – 6th Edition, wheneffective and properly implemented controlsare in place, they cansignificantly reducethe residual risk—even in high-risk business areas like private banking. However, no control framework caneliminate all riskentirely.

Option Ais correct: Controls can significantly reduce the residual risk when strong, effective systems and procedures are in place.

Option Bis partially true but suggests inadequacy, which is not indicated here.

Option Cincorrectly assumes residual risk cannot be lowered even with controls.

Option Dis incorrect because residual riskcannot be eliminated entirely.

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) applies to high-risk customers and transactions, includingpolitically exposed persons (PEPs), high-risk jurisdictions, and correspondent banking relationships.

Option C (Correct):Correspondent banking relationships with high-risk jurisdictions require EDDto prevent cross-border financial crime.

Option D (Correct):Ambassadors are considered PEPs, which require EDD due to corruption risks.

Option E (Correct):A current prime minister is a high-profile PEP, requiringEDD and ongoing transaction monitoring.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):The individual no longer holds a PEP position and is in a low-risk country, soEDD is not required.

Option B (Incorrect):A local footballer does not present a high financial crime risk warranting EDD.

EDD Best Practices for High-Risk Customers:

Verify the source of wealth and funds for PEPs.

Conduct ongoing transaction monitoring on high-risk accounts.

Apply stricter controls on correspondent banking with high-risk jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

C. FSRBs play an essential role in identifying and addressing AML technical assistance needs for their individual member countries. The FSRBs are responsible for promoting the effective implementation of the FATF Recommendations at the regional level, including by assisting member countries in identifying technical assistance needs and facilitating the provision of such assistance.

D. FATF and FSRBs are free-standing organizations that share the common goals of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation. The FATF is an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for AML/CFT and promotes their effective implementation, while the FSRBs are regional organizations that work to promote the effective implementation of the FATF Recommendations at the regional level.

 Predicate offenses are the criminal activities that generate the proceeds that are later laundered through money laundering schemes. A country that does not have strong predicate offenses and is lax in prosecuting AML cases could suffer from increased organized crime and corruption, as criminals would have more opportunities and incentives to engage in illicit activities and evade detection and punishment. Organized crime and corruption can have serious social and economic consequences for a country, such as undermining the rule of law, eroding public trust, threatening national security, harming human rights, reducing economic growth, and distorting market competition123.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, simplified customer due diligence (CDD) or reduced measures could be acceptable for certain types of products or transactions that have a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, based on a reasonable assessment of the risk by countries or by financial institutions. These include:

Life insurance policies where the annual premium is no more than USD/EUR 1,000 or a single premium of no more than USD/EUR 2,500. This is because the amount of money involved is relatively small and the payout is usually contingent on a specific event, such as death or disability, which reduces the likelihood of abuse by criminals.

Insurance policies for pension schemes if there is no surrender clause and the policy cannot be used as collateral. This is because the beneficiaries of these policies are usually predetermined and the funds are locked in until retirement age, which limits the possibility of transferring or withdrawing the money for illicit purposes.

A pension, superannuation or similar scheme that provides retirement benefits to employees, where contributions are made by way of deduction from wages and the scheme rules do not permit the assignment of a member’s interest under the scheme. This is because the source of funds is known and verified by the employer and the scheme is regulated and supervised by competent authorities, which reduces the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

The other option, trusts where the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries are identified and the shares are in bearer form, is not eligible for simplified CDD or reduced measures, because the use of bearer shares poses a high risk of anonymity and concealment of beneficial ownership, which could facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing.

FATF 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 10 and Interpretive Note to Recommendation 10, paragraphs 17-18.

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

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

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

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

D. Large Cash Deposit Followed by ATM Withdrawals:

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

E. Inconsistent Cash Transactions:

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

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

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

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

U.S. law requires that assets and accounts of an OFAC-specified country, entity, or individual be blocked when such property is located in the United States, is held by U.S. individuals or entities, or comes into the possession or control of U.S. individuals or entities.

For example, if a funds transfer comes from offshore and is being routed through a U.S. bank to an offshore bank, and there is an OFAC-designated party to the transaction, it must be blocked. The definition of assets and property is broad and is specifically defined within each sanction program. Assets and property includes anything of direct, indirect, present, future, or contingent value (including all types of bank transactions). Banks must block transactions that:

• Are by or on behalf of a blocked individual or entity;

• Are to or go through a blocked entity; or

• Are in connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity has an interest.

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.”

Thethird line of defense (internal audit)providesindependent oversightof an institution’sAML/CFT compliance framework.

Option B (Correct):The internal audit function should report to the board’s audit committeeto maintainindependence and objectivity.

Option A (Incorrect):While frequent audits are essential, AML audits should be risk-based rather than mandated at a strict 12-month interval.

Option C (Incorrect):Internal audit must assess remediation plansto ensure they adequatelyaddress AML deficiencies.

Option D (Incorrect):The third line of defense should not be involved in daily AML operationstoavoid conflicts of interest.

Three Lines of Defense in AML Risk Management:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

Best Practices for AML Audit Function:

Ensure complete independence from AML operations.

Conduct risk-based audits tailored to emerging threats.

Report audit findings to the board for effective oversight.

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 terroristfinancing 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.

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 banksto 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 thathave 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) .

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

Cross-borderAML investigationsrequire cooperation throughofficial channels, such as theEgmont Group.

Option D (Correct):TheEgmont Groupis an international network ofFIUs that facilitates secure information exchangein financial crime investigations.

Option A (Incorrect):While sovereignty applies,formal international cooperation mechanisms exist.

Option B (Incorrect):AML cooperation is allowed under legal frameworks(e.g.,MLATs, Egmont Secure Web).

Option C (Incorrect):Information-sharing is restrictedtoauthorized government agencies, not all organizations.

 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.

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: CustomerIdentification Program and Lesson 4.3: Enhanced Due Diligence3

RefThis transaction should result in a SAR/STR filing because it indicates possible structuring, which is a form of money laundering that involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits to avoid detection or reporting requirements. Structuring is often done to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes, regulations, or sanctions. A small business owner who deposits checks just below the $10,000 USD threshold on a daily basis without providing a legitimate purpose raises a red flag for suspicious activity and should be reported to the relevant Financial Intelligence Unit.

Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) / Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)

What Is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? Triggers and Filing

How to decide if SAR filing is needed

erence: https://aml-cft.net/library/suspicious-transaction-report-str-suspicious-activity-report-sar/

 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 anotherbank (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.

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

The other options are not advisable or effective, because:

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

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

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

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

STION NO: 96

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

period are close to $9,500.

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

A. The restaurant is located in a different city

B. The daily cash deposits are so close in amount

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

D. The new account demonstrates a steady flow of income

Answer:BD

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

Transactions structured to avoid recordkeeping or reporting requirements

Transactions inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity

Transactions involving the use of multiple accounts or locations

Transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions or entities

Transactions involving cash or complex crypto assets

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

 The anti-money laundering officer (AML officer) is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the anti-money laundering (AML) program of a financial institution. The AML officer should have sufficient authority, independence, and access to resources to perform this role. Reporting to the Sales Director may compromise the independence and objectivity of the AML officer, as the Sales Director may have conflicting interests or incentives that could influence the AML officer’s decisions or actions. The AML officer should report to a senior management level that is independent of business functions and has direct access to the board of directors or a relevant committee. This would ensure that the AML officer can communicate any AML issues or concerns to the board without any interference or undue influence from the business functions.

= Some of the references that support this answer are:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 41: “The AML officer should report to a senior management level that is independent of the business line and has direct access to the board of directors or a relevant committee.”

Money Laundering Reporting Officer: The Role Of MLRO, Section “Role Of Money Laundering Reporting Officer”: “The MLRO should have independent monitoring and should be able to connect directly with people who make business decisions, such as senior management or the board of directors.”

Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO)? | Dow Jones, Section “What is a Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO)?”: “A Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) is tasked with overseeing a firm’s compliance with the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) rules on money laundering. … The MLRO should have sufficient authority and independence within the firm to carry out their responsibilities effectively.”

According to the Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, a shell bank is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated and licensed, and which is unaffiliated with a regulated financial group that is subject to effective consolidated supervision. Physical presence means meaningful mind and management located within a country. The existence simply of a local agent or low level staff does not constitute physical presence. Therefore, a shell bank meets the criteria A, B, and D, as it does not conduct business at a fixed address, does not employ one or more individuals or maintain operating records at that address, and is not subject to inspection by the banking authority that licensed it. Criterion C is not specific to shell banks, as any bank, whether shell or not, may or may not be subject to AML laws that require it to implement an AML program, depending on the jurisdiction.

Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, Section: Definitions, pp. 3-4.

The first step in a financial investigation is to review and analyze allinternalsources of information related to the suspicious transaction.

Option C (Correct):Gathering and assessing internal data helps investigators establish a baseline for normal vs. suspicious customer behavior. This includes reviewing KYC (Know Your Customer) documentation, transaction history, and any previous alerts on the customer.

Option B (Incorrect):This is part of the investigation, but an investigator first needs togatherdata before determining consistency with expected behavior.

Option A (Incorrect):An FIU is typically contactedafterinternal analysis has been completed and a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is warranted.

Option D (Incorrect):External information is useful, but internal data should be reviewed first to confirm whether a case needs escalation.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the best practices for conducting an internal investigation is to request formal company authorization to conduct the investigation. Such authorization should be granted, if possible, by the board of directors or audit committee, as this will help to establish the independence and legitimacy of the investigation, as well as the protection of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine1. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Refusing to provide any records or documents to law enforcement may be seen as obstructing justice or violating regulatory obligations, and may also result in the loss of the privilege or the imposition of sanctions or penalties23.

C. Letting the bank hire any and all contract investigators may compromise the quality and integrity of the investigation, as well as the protection of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as the investigators may not be properly supervised or instructed by legal counsel, or may not be covered by the Kovel doctrine45.

D. Not marking files or documents with privileged and confidential: attorney-client privilege and/or work-product may undermine the claim of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as it may indicate that the materials were not prepared for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or in anticipation of litigation, or that they were not intended to be kept confidential67.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 151

3: Perkins Coie, Protecting Internal Investigation Materials From Disclosure, Updates, August 10, 2020

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

5: Eversheds Sutherland, Legal privilege of corporate internal investigations under US law - 2019 caselaw update, JDSupra, December 20, 2019

6: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

7: Norton Rose Fulbright, Internal investigations: when does privilege apply?, Global law firm, September 11, 2018

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 longerentrusted 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.

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

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is a form of cooperation between different countries for the purpose of collecting and exchanging information and evidence in criminal matters. MLA is usually governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties that establish the procedures and requirements for requesting and providing assistance. The first valid step in the MLA process is to send a formal request from the central authority of the requesting country to the central authority of the requested country. The central authority is the designated entity that is responsible for making, receiving, and facilitating the execution of MLA requests. The request should contain the necessary information and documents to enable the requested country to assess and execute the request, such as the nature and purpose of the request, the legal basis, the description of the assistance sought, the identity of the persons involved, the applicable legal provisions, and the deadline for the response. The request may also be accompanied by a commission letter of request, which is a judicial document that authorizes a foreign authority to perform certain acts on behalf of the requesting authority, such as taking evidence or statements from witnesses or suspects.

Guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61, 2.62, 2.63, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.

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

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 informationexchange 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, Chapter 2, page 29

An institution should focus on the appropriateness of having a centralized review of suspicious transactions and recommendations to file an STR to ensure consistency. This is because a centralized review process can help to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of STRs, as well as to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies. A centralized review process can also facilitate the analysis of trends, patterns, and typologies of suspicious transactions across the institution, and enable the communication and coordination with relevant stakeholders, such as law enforcement, regulators, or other financial institutions.

=

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1, page 1911

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 5.3, video time 2:30-4:002

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 124, page 2843

 A politically exposed person (PEP) is a customer who requires the most enhanced due diligence (EDD). This is because PEPs are individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, judges, military officers, ordirectors of state-owned enterprises, and who may pose a higher risk of money laundering, corruption, or bribery due to their influence and access to public funds1. EDD measures for PEPs may include obtaining senior management approval, establishing the source of wealth and funds, and conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship2.

The other customers listed do not necessarily require the most EDD, although they may still present a higher risk of money laundering depending on the circumstances. A resident of a non-cooperative jurisdiction is a customer who lives in a country or territorythat has been identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) or other international bodies as having weak or deficient anti-money laundering (AML) standards or posing a threat to the international financial system3. EDD measures for such customers may include obtaining additional information or documentation, applying extra scrutiny to transactions, or refusing to establish or continue the business relationship4. An international business corporation is a customer who operates in multiple jurisdictions and may have complex or opaque ownership structures that can conceal the identity or activity of the beneficial owners or controllers. EDD measures for such customers may include verifying the legal existence and structure of the entity, identifying the beneficial owners and controllers, and understanding the nature and purpose of the business relationship. An established customer is a customer who has a long-standing and regular business relationship with the financial institution and who may have a lower risk of money laundering due to the familiarity and trust that has been built over time. EDD measures for such customers may not be required unless there are changes in the customer’s profile, behavior, or risk level.

1: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) - FATF1 2: High-risk customers, including politically exposed persons | FCA2 3: High-Risk and Other Monitored Jurisdictions - FATF3 4: Your responsibilities under money laundering supervision | GOV.UK4 : International Business Corporations - ACAMS : Anti-Money Laundering Customer Due Diligence | Veriff.com : Customer Due Diligence - ACAMS : Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

AMutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)is aformal agreement between two or more countriesthat facilitatescooperation in legal and law enforcement matters, includingAML investigations.

Option D (Correct):MLATs allow governments to share financial intelligence, request legal assistance, and conduct joint investigations.

Option A (Incorrect):A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is typically a non-binding contract used for general business or governmental cooperation.

Option B (Incorrect):A Declaration of Understanding is an informal agreement and does not provide a legal framework for law enforcement cooperation.

Option C (Incorrect):A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is often used for informal cooperation but lacks the legal enforceability of an MLAT.

Option E (Incorrect):A Request for Urgent Information is not a recognized international legal instrument.

Best Practices for Cross-Border AML Cooperation:

Use MLATs to request access to financial records in foreign jurisdictions.

Collaborate with Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) via the Egmont Group.

Leverage FATF’s International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) for guidance.

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

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

Understanding Money Laundering in Casinos | ComplyAdvantage2

Casino Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators - Alessa3

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.

[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.

In situations involving significant AML concerns, especially with high-risk clients, thecompliance officer must follow proper escalation procedureswithin the institution. The appropriate course of action is toescalate the matter to a senior governance body, such as ahigh-risk client committee, which is typically tasked with balancing AML risk against business considerations.

Unilateral offboarding (Option B)may violate internal protocols.

Persuading the relationship manager (Option C)bypasses formal governance.

Delaying action (Option D)risks further exposure to regulatory or reputational damage.

This escalation ensuresdocumented risk-based decision-makingand demonstrates to regulators that the institution appliesstructured and objective AML governance.

1. A. Micro-structuring cash:

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

2. B. Legitimizing illicit funds:

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

A. Micro-structuring cash:

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

B. Legitimizing Illicit Funds:

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

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

The customer’s profile and transactions are highly suspicious and indicative of possible money laundering. The customer’s income, source of wealth, and investment plans do not match with the large and frequent transfers from a diamond distributor, which is a high-risk business sector for money laundering. The customer’s transfers to Hong Kong, which is a high-risk jurisdiction for money laundering, also raise red flags. The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend contacting the competent authority and local law enforcement to report the suspicious activity and cooperate with any investigation. This is in accordance with the FATF Recommendation 20, which states that "If a financial institution suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds arethe proceeds of a criminal activity, or are related to terrorist financing, it should be required, by law, to report promptly its suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU)"1. The other options are not appropriate, as they do not address the urgency and severity of the situation.

 1: FATF (2012), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, www.fatf-gafi.org/recommendations.html, p. 19.

International cooperation is essentialinAML investigations, and theEgmont GroupfacilitatesFIU-to-FIU information sharing.

Option D (Correct):Egmont Group memberscan request and share information forAML/CFT investigations.

Option A (Incorrect):Sovereigntydoes not preventcooperationunder proper agreements.

Option B (Incorrect):AML laws allowdata sharing under legal frameworkslikeMutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs).

Option C (Incorrect):Information sharing isrestricted to FIUs and authorized agencies, notall organizations.

Under the Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles, conducting enhanced due diligence (EDD) is an obligation for correspondent banking clients that present greater risks. This may include conducting additional research and analysis of the client's background, ownership structure, and transactions. EDD may also involve obtaining additional documentation, verifying the client's identity, and conducting periodic reviews to ensure ongoing compliance. The level of EDD required should be commensurate with the level of risk posed by the correspondent banking relationship. Therefore, option B and D are incorrect. Option A is not specific enough to address the question. Option C is the correct answer as it highlights the importance of senior management approval for high-risk relationships, which is a key component of EDD.

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.

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

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 moneyorders 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.

 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

Money launderers preferlarge-denomination billsbecause theyfacilitate bulk cash smuggling and placement.

Option A (Correct):Increased demand for large-denomination banknotesis a knownmoney laundering red flag.

Option B (Incorrect):Increased digital service adoption isnormal banking behavior.

Option C (Incorrect):Faster settlement times may reflecttechnology upgrades, not financial crime.

Option D (Incorrect):Maintaining a log of monetary instruments isa compliance best practice, not a red flag.

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. Thisstage 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.

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

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 couldindicate that the customer is trying to conceal the source or destination of the funds, or transfer them to a high-risk jurisdiction2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AML risk assessments must beupdatedwhen there aresignificant changes in business operations.

Option A (Correct):New products (e.g.,cryptocurrency services, trade finance) introducenew AML risks.

Option D (Correct):Technology changes(e.g.,AI in transaction monitoring, new digital banking platforms) impactfraud and AML controls.

Option E (Correct):Mergers or acquisitionsintroducenew customer bases, jurisdictions, and compliance frameworks, requiringrisk reevaluation.

Option B (Incorrect):While compliance restructuring is important,it does not change inherent risk exposure.

Option C (Incorrect):Management changesmay affect oversight, but they donot directly alter risk exposure.

Trade finance transactions involve the financing of the movement of goods and services across borders. Trade finance products include letters of credit, guarantees, documentary collections, open account, and supply chain finance. Trade finance transactions are exposed to various risks, such as credit risk, operational risk, fraud risk, and money laundering risk. Money laundering risk refers to the possibility that trade finance transactions are used to conceal the origin, ownership, or destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes, sanctions, or exchange controls. Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a form of money laundering that involves the manipulation of trade transactions, such as mispricing, misinvoicing, over- or under-shipping, or falsifying documents, to transfer value or obscure the true nature of the funds12.

An analyst reviewing trade finance transactions should be alert to any red flags or indicators of potential TBML, such as significant discrepancies between the value or quantity of the goods and the invoice, payment, or contract; unusual or complex shipment routes or methods; involvement of high-risk jurisdictions, entities, or commodities; or lack of transparency or documentation of the trade transaction12. If the analyst notices an increase in price of 25% over 12 months for commodities with the same specification and quantity, this could be a sign of mispricing, which is a common technique of TBML. Mispricing involves inflating or deflating the price of the goods to transfer value or evade taxes or duties. For example, an exporter may overprice the goods to move funds out of a country with exchange controls, or an importer may underprice the goods to reduce the customs duty payable12.

However, an increase in price of 25% over 12 months for commodities with the same specification and quantity does not necessarily indicate TBML, as there could be other legitimate factors that may have affected the transaction cost, such as market fluctuations, supply and demand, quality, transportation, insurance, or other fees. Therefore, the analyst should not jump to the conclusion that TBML is occurring, but rather conduct a thorough investigation to verify the validity and rationale of the price change. The analyst should produce an investigation report that considers the client activity and factors that may have legitimately affected the transaction cost, such as:

The nature and purpose of the client’s business and trade activities

The client’s profile, risk rating, and transaction history

The source and destination of the funds and the goods

The market price and trends of the commodities involved

The contractual terms and conditions of the trade transaction

The supporting documents, such as invoices, bills of lading, certificates of origin, inspection reports, etc.

The due diligence and verification procedures performed by the bank or the third parties

The compliance with the relevant laws, regulations, and standards of the jurisdictions involved

The investigation report should document the findings, analysis, and conclusions of the analyst, and provide evidence and references to support the assessment. The investigation report should also include any recommendations or actions to be taken by the bank or the authorities, such as:

Requesting additional information or clarification from the client or the counterparties

Conducting enhanced due diligence or monitoring of the client or the transaction

Escalating the case to the senior management or the compliance department

Reporting the case to the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) or the relevant regulator

Filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) or a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) if there are reasonable grounds to suspect TBML or other criminal activity

Therefore, the best action for the analyst to take is to produce an investigation report that considers the client activity and factors that may have legitimately affected the transaction cost, as this would allow the analyst to determine whether the price increase is justified or indicative of TBML, and to take appropriate measures accordingly.

Trade Finance and Trade-Based Money Laundering

Trade-Based Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the challenges of information sharing within a financial group is the compliance with privacy and data protection rules that may vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, before sharing information about a customer with an affiliate, a bank should consider whether such sharing is permitted by the applicable laws and regulations, and whether the customer has consented to it. The other options are not relevant factors for information sharing in the case of an investigation.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), page 971; ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 22

The most suspicious transaction indicators related to casino activities are:

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

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

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

The option that is not suspicious is:

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specialized AML training must be relevant to the specific risks the corporate banking team faces, including legal/regulatory expectations and the ML/TF typologies applicable to their products and customer base.

Applicable AML laws and regulations (B):“Staff must be aware of the applicable AML/CFT laws and regulatory requirements relevant to their business area.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: AML Training and Awareness)

Money laundering typologies applicable to corporate loans (D):“Training should include typologies and red flags that are most relevant to the risks present in the specific business line, such as corporate lending.”(CAMS 6th Edition, AML Training for High-Risk Departments)

Incorrect Options:

A: Monetary instrument reporting is more relevant to retail/branch banking.

C: Regulatory exam best practices are for compliance teams, not business-line relationship managers.

The FATF Regional Style Bodies (FSRBs) are autonomous regional organizations that help the FATFimplement its global AML/CFT policy, which revolves around its 40 Recommendations, in over 200 affiliated countries1. One of the key characteristics of the FSRBs is that they emphasize regional co-operation between member countries, as stated in the High-Level Principles and Objectives approved by the FATF Plenary in October 20122. This means that the FSRBs facilitate information exchange, technical assistance, training, and mutual support among their members to enhance their AML/CFT capacities and compliance. The FSRBs also promote regional perspectives and specificities in the FATF policy-making process and foster dialogue and collaboration with other regional and international bodies2.

1: What are the 9 FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)? - Sygna

2: FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) - Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering

The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend a financial institution to investigate the source of funds, identify people and companies that are clearly related, and identify a person fully, including their political history, when dealing with individuals holding important public positions. These are essential steps to conduct enhanced due diligence based on public information, as they can help to assess the risk profile, the legitimacy, and the transparency of the customer relationship. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s list of public officials is not a reliable source of public information, as it is not comprehensive, updated, or verified. Therefore, it is not a sufficient criterion to check the background of potential customers.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 971

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 32

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 4, Task 23

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 ofmoney. 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.

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

 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 financialsystem. Structuring is illegal under the Bank Secrecy Act and can result in civil and criminal penalties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, two channels that can be utilized during a cross-border money laundering investigation to assist in gathering information are contacting existing liaison officers in the foreign jurisdiction and exchanging information between national law enforcement agencies. These are two of the methods that the FATF recommends in its guidance on international cooperation1. The FATF states thatliaison officers can facilitate the exchange of information and intelligence, provide operational support, and coordinate joint investigations1. The FATF also encourages the use of bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements to enable the exchange of information and intelligence between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the use of informal networks or mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units1.

Option C is incorrect because contacting the potential suspect or their family members to request information is not a recommended channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. This method may alert the suspect of the investigation, compromise the confidentiality of the information, or violate the legal rights of the suspect or their family members. Moreover, the information obtained from the suspect or their family members may not be reliable or admissible in court.

Option D is incorrect because submitting only formal requests for information to a financial intelligence unit (FIU) is not a sufficient channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. While FIUs play an important role in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating financial information, they are not the only source of information for cross-border investigations. The FATF guidance states that investigators should also seek information from other competent authorities, such as law enforcement, supervisory, or judicial authorities, depending on the nature and purpose of the information sought1. Furthermore, the FATF guidance advises investigators to use both formal and informal channels of communication, as formal requests may take longer or face legal obstacles1.

1: FATF, International Co-operation Review Group, Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, October 2012, pp. 13-18.

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

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

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

The charity frequently withdrawing cash from the bank indicates possible terrorist financing, as cash transactions are often used to conceal the source, destination, and purpose of funds. Cash transactions also make it difficult to trace the flow of funds and identify the beneficiaries. Terrorist financiers may use charities as a cover to collect and distribute funds for their activities, and may exploit the cash-based nature of charitable donations to avoid detection12.

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.

Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy

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

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

According to the 6th edition Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist Study Guide, when the compliance department receives an internal referral that appears to indicate terrorist financing, the first step in the investigation process should be to gather background and transaction information. This includes obtaining customer identification and verifying customer data, obtaining additional information about the customer and the transaction, and reviewing the transaction activity. This information will help to determine if the referral is accurate and if further action is needed.

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

1: The FATF Recommendations - Financial Action Task Force

2: IX Special Recommendations - Financial Action Task Force

A transaction monitoring system (TMS) is a tool that helps financial institutions detect and report suspicious activities related to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. A TMS needs to be implemented carefully and effectively to ensure its accuracy, reliability, and compliance with regulatory requirements.

One of the best practices for implementing a TMS is to perform systems integration testing (SIT) at key steps of development and user acceptance testing (UAT) prior to going live with the TMS. SIT is a process of verifying that the TMS can interact with other systems and data sources correctly and efficiently. UAT is a process of validating that the TMS meets the functional and operational expectations of the end-users and stakeholders.

By conducting SIT and UAT, the financial institution can identify and resolve any issues or defects in the TMS before it is deployed in the production environment. This can help avoid potential problems such as data quality issues, false positives, false negatives, system errors, performance issues, and regulatory breaches. Performing SIT and UAT can also help ensure that the TMS is aligned with the financial institution’s risk assessment, policies, procedures, and controls.

FIs mustcooperate with law enforcement requestswhile ensuringlegal compliance.

Option C (Correct):Adesignated compliance officershould handledocument preparation and internal review.

Option A (Incorrect):There isno requirementto wait for theCEO’s approval.

Option B (Incorrect):Privacy policies should already align withAML laws, delaying compliance isnot recommended.

Option D (Incorrect):Blocking a lawful requestcould lead tolegal and regulatory action.

A compliance officer should communicate with regulatory and law enforcement authorities in line with applicable local laws during an ongoing investigation into a client’s activities by a competent authority. This is because the compliance officer has a duty to cooperate with the authorities and provide relevant information and documents as requested, while also protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the client and the institution. The compliance officer should not restrict the communication to senior management only, as this could hinder the investigation or create a perception of obstruction. The compliance officer should not communicate only in writing, as this could limit the effectiveness and timeliness of the communication. The compliance officer should not limit the communication to the absolute minimum, as this could imply a lack of cooperation or transparency.

=

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

This is the correct answer because the institution must ensure that the beneficiaries of the transfers are not on a terrorist watch list, such as the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List, the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or the European Union Terrorism List. These lists contain the names of individuals, entities, and groups that are subject to sanctions or other measures due to their involvement or association with terrorism or terrorist financing. The institution must screen the beneficiaries of the transfers against these lists and report any matches or hits to the relevant authorities. Failing to do so may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, or reputational risks, as well as facilitate the financing of terrorism.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Lesson 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, pp. 57-58

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, Slide 12

Casinos and gambling institutionsare highly vulnerable to money launderingbecause they allow theconversion of cash into chips, checks, or electronic credits, which can later be redeemed as “clean” funds.

Option A (Correct):A privately held company funding multiple patrons' betting accounts is highly suspiciousand may indicate:

Structuring/smurfing, where multiple individuals are used to move illicit funds.

Third-party money laundering, where the real source of funds is obscured.

Trade-based money laundering, if linked to non-gaming businesses.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Placing multiple bets on the same eventis not inherently suspiciousunless linked tofraudulent betting patterns.

Option C (Incorrect):Large chip purchases in cashmay requirereporting, but they do not necessarily indicatemoney laundering.

Option D (Incorrect):Transferring winnings to another operator may beunusual, butnot automatically suspiciousunless the amount is large and unjustified.

Common Money Laundering Techniques in Casinos:

Chip Walking– Buying chips with illicit funds and cashing them out later as "clean" funds.

Casino Account Transfers– Using multiple accounts or third-party accounts to move funds.

High-Value Gambling with No Loss Intent– Betting on both sides of an event to ensure clean withdrawal of funds.

Best Practices for Casino AML Compliance:

Monitor suspicious large transactions and third-party funding activities.

Perform enhanced due diligence (EDD) on high-risk patrons.

File Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for unusual gambling activity.

The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. The group started as a meeting of banks in 1999 to address anti-money laundering (AML) in private banking, which carries an increased degree of risk from a money laundering perspective. In the course of discussions, they articulated principles that reflected uniformly high standards for this client segment. These principles became the first guidance published by the group under the name Wolfsberg Principles.

The Wolfsberg Group - Institute on Governance

Wolfsberg Group - Wikipedia

The Group first came together in 2000 at the Wolfsberg castle in Switzerland, accompanied by representatives of Transparency International, to draft anti-money laundering guidelines for private banking

According to the BSA/AML Manual1, a financial institution’s board of directors and senior management are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the institution has a comprehensive and effective BSA/AML compliance program and oversight framework. This includes ensuring that the institution timely identifies, reports, and responds to suspicious activity involving its products, services, customers, or employees. Therefore, when an anti-money laundering specialist is concerned that several suspicious transaction reports will discuss potential illegal activity of bank employees, the immediate concern for the institution is to ensure no delay in informing the board of directors and senior management of the situation, as well as the actions taken or planned to address the risks and mitigate the potential harm. The board and senior management should be kept informed of the status and outcome of any internal or external investigations, as well as any regulatory or law enforcement inquiries or actions, related to the suspicious activity involving bank employees.

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

What’s Suspicious? Here’s How Banks Apply the Smell Test4

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, structuring is a technique used by money launderers to avoid triggering currency transaction reporting requirements by breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits that are below the reporting threshold1. Structuring can also involve withdrawing cash in small amounts from different locations or branches to evade detection and scrutiny2. Therefore, the compliance analyst is potentially identifying structuring as the type of money laundering in this case.

Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Actenhancesregulatory oversight of foreign financial institutions with U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option A (Correct):This section requires foreign banks to provide relevant AML records within 120 hours upon request from a U.S. regulatory agency.

Option B (Incorrect):This describes Section 311, which deals with special measures against foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions.

Option C (Incorrect):This is covered under Section 319(b), which permits asset seizures from U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option D (Incorrect):This relates to Section 312, which mandates due diligence on foreign correspondent accounts and private banking.

Best Practices for Compliance with Section 319(a):

Ensure the ability to produce AML-related records within 120 hours.

Establish clear communication channels between correspondent banks.

Monitor foreign financial institution relationships for compliance risks.

Certain corporate structuresobscure beneficial ownership, making themattractive for money laundering.

Option A (Correct):Nominee shareholders and directors conceal the true owners of a company, increasing AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Bearer shares allow ownership to be transferred anonymously, making it difficult to trace transactions.

Option E (Correct):Private investment companies in tax havens with strict secrecy laws enable illicit fund movements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):A private company that does not operate in a tax haven presents lower ML risk.

Option D (Incorrect):A foreign LLC is not necessarily high-risk unless linked to a secrecy jurisdiction.

Best Practices for Identifying High-Risk Corporate Structures:

Require full disclosure of beneficial ownership.

Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) on tax-haven entities.

Monitor for unusual cross-border transactions.

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’srisk 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.

 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.

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.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)are collaborative initiatives involvinglaw enforcement, FIUs, and financial institutions. Their objective is to improve theefficiency and effectivenessof the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes bysharing both operational and strategic intelligence.

Option A – Exchange operational information between public authorities and obliged entities:

PPPs often facilitate real-time or near-real-time information sharing that supportsspecific investigations and the detection of suspicious activity, helping financial institutions respond quickly and accurately to ongoing threats.

Option B – Exchange strategic information between FIUs and obliged entities:

Strategic-level intelligence sharing helps financial institutionsunderstand typologies, risk trends, and evolving criminal methods, thereby strengthening their risk assessments and transaction monitoring frameworks.

Option Cis incorrect: Strategic information exchange between private institutions is limited and heavily regulated.

Option Dis incorrect: FATF does not collect or manage databases of suspicious activity reports; it sets standards and reviews national frameworks.

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

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

Money launderersexploit corporate structuresthat offeranonymityandreduced transparency.

Option A (Correct):Nominee shareholders and directorscan be used tohide true beneficial ownership.

Option C (Correct):Bearer sharesallowownership to transfer anonymously, amajor AML risk.

Option E (Correct):Tax haven companieswithsecrecy lawsare frequently used formoney laundering.

Option B (Incorrect):A private companywithout activitydoes not inherently pose anAML risk.

Option D (Incorrect):LLCscan be transparentif properKYC and reporting measuresare in place.

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

FIs must handlelaw enforcement subpoenas carefullytocomply with legal and AML obligations.

Option A (Correct):Legal counsel must review subpoenasto ensure compliance withAML and privacy laws.

Option B (Incorrect):Original documentsshould only be provided underspecific legal conditions.

Option C (Incorrect):Account closure decisionsmust followAML risk-based assessment.

Option D (Incorrect):Tipping offa customer about an investigation isillegalunder AML laws.

The bank’s existing anti-money laundering training is not adequate to be delivered to the employees of the newly acquired credit card business, because anti-money laundering training needs to be tailored and focused on the risks specific to the business. Credit card businesses face different types of money laundering risks than retail banks, suchas card-not-present fraud, identity theft, card skimming, and prepaid card abuse. Therefore, the anti-money laundering training for credit card businesses should cover the specific red flags, indicators, typologies, and mitigation measures related to these risks, as well as the relevant laws and regulations that apply to credit card businesses.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.31

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.21

Certification Candidate Handbook, Section 3.22

Latest CAMS Exam Questions, Question 433

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.

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

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

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

FATF website

FATF 40 Recommendations - February 2012

FATF Recommendation 5 - Criminalisation of Terrorist Financing

Regulatory exams assess whether financial institutions comply with AML/CFT laws and have adequately addressed previous deficiencies.

Option C (Correct):Regulators may still issue remediation orders if the bank's improvements do not fully resolve prior AML compliance gaps.

Option D (Correct):If deficiencies persist, regulators may impose civil or criminal penalties.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Secondary sanctions typically apply to institutions violating international sanctions laws, not AML program deficiencies.

Option B (Incorrect):Regulatory orders are not always confidential—major enforcement actions may be publicly disclosed.

Option E (Incorrect):Boards are responsible for AML oversight but are not always required to disclose corrective actions publicly.

Best Practices for Addressing AML Exam Findings:

Document all remediation efforts with clear implementation timelines.

Demonstrate a culture of compliance through leadership and training.

Ensure sustained improvements, not just short-term fixes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods that attorneys may use to facilitate money laundering is to make payments to third parties on behalf of their clients, using funds from their client accounts. This may obscure the source and destination of the funds, and create a false appearance of legitimate transactions. Therefore, making payment to various people is a red flag for potential money laundering in this situation.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 117

FATF Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Vulnerabilities of Legal Professionals, June 2013, page 341

AML/CFT Red Flags for Lawyers, AML-CFT.net, October 20202

In the context ofgambling and gaming sectors, a well-known money laundering typology is the use of platforms tointroduce illicit funds and withdraw them as "winnings". When a customerdeposits large cash amounts and quickly withdraws themwithout engaging in actual gambling, it indicates"placement and layering"techniques.

This behavior is indicative of attempts todisguise the origin of illicit funds, converting them into legitimate-looking financial flows. It is considered a classic red flag in AML programs related to casinos and online gaming.

Banks mustcomply with legal subpoenaswhile ensuring AML compliance.

Option B (Correct):The bank shouldreview client transactionsandrespond fullyto law enforcement.

Option A (Incorrect):Filing a SAR simply because of a subpoenaisnot requiredunless suspicious activity is identified.

Option C (Incorrect):Tipping offthe client about the subpoena isillegalunder AML laws.

Option D (Incorrect):Risk scores should be reviewedbut not automatically adjustedsolely based on a subpoena.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation issued by the European Union (EU) that sets out requirements for the processing and protection of personal data. It applies to any company that processes personal data of individuals in the EU, and requires organizations to take appropriate measures to protect the personal data of individuals, such as implementing appropriate security measures, limiting the amount of data collected and stored, and providing clear explanations of how the data will be used. In the context of financial crime investigations, the GDPR requires organizations to ensure the security and confidentiality of personal data that they collect and process, and to take measures to ensure that the data is used only for the purpose of the investigation and not for any other purpose.

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

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

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

Red flags in connection with a company involved in illegal logging include: D. Expeditious shipment of wood to far away jurisdictions, E. Use of heavy machinery in non-protected areas, and F. Executive's association with politically exposed persons. These red flags could be indicative of attempts to conceal the origin of illegally harvested wood and to avoid detection by government authorities.

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

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

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

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

this situation requires enhanced due diligence actions according to the AML principles of the Wolfsberg group. The Wolfsberg group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop standards and best practices for AML and CFT in the private banking sector. The group has issued a set of principles and guidance on how to conduct due diligence on private banking customers, especially those who pose higher risks, such as politically exposed persons (PEPs), customers from high-risk countries, and customers with complex or opaque structures. According to the Wolfsberg group, private banks should apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence and perform enhanced measures for high-risk customers, such as obtaining senior management approval, verifying the identity and source of wealth of the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the relationship, and conducting ongoing monitoring and review.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.5, page 118: “The Wolfsberg Group”.

ExamTopics, Question 466: “Which private banking situation requires due diligence actions to be implemented according to the AML principles of the Wolfsberg group?”

TheFATF Immediate Outcomes (IOs)measure the effectiveness of AML/CFT frameworks in jurisdictions.

Option A (Correct):International cooperationis key to combating financial crime, as outlined inImmediate Outcome 2.

Option B (Correct):Effective regulation of financial institutionsis part ofImmediate Outcome 3, which ensures compliance with AML laws.

Option E (Correct):Investigation and prosecution of money laundering offensesalign withImmediate Outcome 7.

Option C (Incorrect):FATF itself does not conduct investigations; FIUs share intelligence with domestic and international agencies.

Option D (Incorrect):While financial criminals face legal consequences, there is no global mandate to restrict their access to banking.

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

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

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

According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 38, one of the steps that a financial institution should take when it suspects money laundering activity is to file a suspicious transaction report (STR) or a suspicious activity report (SAR) to the relevant authorities. This will alert the regulators and law enforcement of the potentialmoney laundering scheme and provide them with valuable information to trace the funds and identify the perpetrators.

Another step that a financial institution should take is to identify any unusual or suspicious wire transfers initiated by casas de cambio to jurisdictions outside of Mexico that bear no apparent business relationship with that casa de cambio. This could indicate that the casas de cambio are involved in layering and integration stages of money laundering, where they are moving the illicit funds across borders and disguising their origin and ownership. The financial institution should monitor and document these wire transfers and report them to the authorities if necessary.

Option B is not a relevant step to trace funds through the bank, as it does not provide any information about the source, destination, or purpose of the funds. A decrease in the sale of large denomination U.S. bank notes to casas de cambio by the bank could be due to various factors, such as market demand, exchange rates, or regulatory changes, and does not necessarily indicate money laundering activity.

Option C is also not a relevant step to trace funds through the bank, as it does not indicate any connection to the suspected money laundering scheme. Deposits by casas de cambio that include third-party items, such as sequentially numbered monetary instruments, could be legitimate transactions that are part of the normal business operations of the casas de cambio. Unless there is evidence that these deposits are related to the sale of large denomination U.S. bank notes or the Mexican syndicate, they are not useful for tracing the funds.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 38

Combating Money Laundering and Other Forms of Illicit Finance

Sting Operation Snares Casa de Cambio for Allegedly Laundering Millions Through U.S. Banks

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 191, “Reloadable open-loop prepaid cards are a high-risk product for money laundering because they can be used to store and move large amounts of funds anonymously. They can also be used to access cash at ATMs or through cash-back transactions at merchants.” Therefore, option B is a red flag that may indicate money laundering, as a non-bank customer who regularly loads large amounts of cash onto several prepaid cards may be trying to avoid identification, verification, or transaction reporting requirements.

CAMS Study Guide, page 1911

The threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist despite the absence of a US nexus. This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 591, which states: “It is important to note that the threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist even when there is no direct US nexus (i.e., no US persons or assets involved).”

An effective AML transaction monitoring system must align withthe bank’s operational complexity, risk exposure, and analytical capabilities.

Option A (Correct):The system must be tailored to the bank’s specific risk profile to ensure effectiveness.

Option D (Correct):A strong AML system should support trend analysis to identify long-term suspicious behaviors.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):While vendor controls are important, they do not determine system suitability.

Option C (Incorrect):User access settings should be based on the bank’s internal risk framework, not industry standards alone.

Best Practices for Implementing an AML Monitoring System:

Ensure scalability to adapt to evolving financial crime risks.

Leverage AI and machine learning to enhance detection accuracy.

Integrate real-time screening and transaction trend analysis.

One of the core components of a strong AFC (Anti-Financial Crimes) compliance program is establishingclear roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability, especially forescalating and addressing AFC risks and compliance issues. This governance clarity ensures effective implementation, transparency in decision-making, and timely resolution of compliance concerns.

While external audits (option A) and internal controls (option B) are important,defining governance structure and escalation responsibilities (option D)is a foundational element. Additionally, the board of directors (option C) provides oversight—not day-to-day compliance monitoring.

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

= Some of the references that support this answer are:

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

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

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

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.

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

ACAMS website, section on CAMS certification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutions that violate anti-money laundering laws may face various risks and consequences, such as legal, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks. As demonstrated by the 2012 HSBC settlement with United States authorities, two of the most significant risks are:

Forfeiture of assets. This means that the institution may have to surrender some or all of its assets that are related to the money laundering activities or violations. For example, HSBC agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion as part of its deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice1.

Civil money penalties. This means that the institution may have to pay fines or penalties to the government or other regulatory agencies for violating the anti-money laundering laws or regulations. For example, HSBC agreed to pay $665 million in civil money penalties to various US regulators, including the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency1.

The other two options, C and D, are not as common or relevant to the 2012 HSBC settlement. Loss of bank charter/license may occur in extreme cases where the institution is deemed unfit to operate or poses a serious threat to the financial system. Imprisonment of bank employees may occur if the employees are found guilty of criminal charges, such as fraud, conspiracy, or wilful violation of anti-money laundering laws. However, these outcomes are usually reserved for individuals, not institutions, and depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

1: HSBC announces settlements with authorities, 2012, https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/investors/stock-exchange-announcements/2012/december/2012-12-11-hsbc-announces-settlements-with-authorities.pdf

2: Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and HSBC Holdings plc, 2012, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20121211_33

3: HSBC settles on record US fee, 2012, https://www.dw.com/en/hsbc-settles-in-us-money-laundering-probe/a-16443391

4: HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laundering accusations, 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering

5: HSBC to pay $1.9bn in US money laundering penalties, 2012, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466

According to the Wolfsberg Group, a global association of leading banks that develops guidance and standards for the management of financial crime risks, both private and correspondent banks should monitor account and transactional activity after the proper identification and verification of customers, as part of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures12. This is consistent with the FATF Recommendation 10, which requires financial institutions to conduct ongoing due diligence on their business relationships, including scrutinising transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the customer’s risk profile and source of funds3. Monitoring account and transactional activity is a key component of the risk-based approach, as it enables banks to detect and report suspicious or unusual transactions, identify changes in customer behaviour or circumstances, and update customer information and risk assessments accordingly4.

D: NGOs play an important role in raising awareness about money laundering, lobbying for strong AML/CFT laws, and educating the public and stakeholders about the risks and consequences.

“NGOs help combat money laundering primarily through advocacy, education, and raising public and industry awareness.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Role of NGOs in AML/CFT)

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 andcommunication 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.

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?

OFAC sanctions are a key element of the U.S. AML/CFT framework. According to the CAMS 6th Edition and OFAC regulations:

Blocked funds must be placed into an interest-bearing account on a financial institution's books (B):“Blocked property must be held in a separate interest-bearing account on the books of the U.S. financial institution.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance; OFAC FAQs)

Sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions (C):“OFAC administers both comprehensive and targeted (selective) sanctions programs to fulfill U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance)

Incorrect Options:

A: OFAC can sanction entities, vessels, and organizations—not just individuals or those in foreign countries.

D: There is no automatic expiration of OFAC sanctions after five years.

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

=

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

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 ofmoney 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.

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

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers based in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature is the use of a money trader to ensure that the revenue from drug sales in the U.S.doesn’t actually 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 cartels12. The BMPE involves six distinct steps:

Obtaining criminal proceeds: The drug cartels sell drugs for dollars in the U.S.

Involvement of intermediary services: The drug cartels sell the dollars to black market peso exchangers in Colombia at a discounted rate.

Identification of complicit companies: The black market peso exchangers identify exporting companies in the U.S. and importing companies in South America that are willing to participate in the scheme.

Placement of funds: The black market peso exchangers deposit the dollars into U.S. bank accounts or use money service businesses or other methods to transfer the funds.

Layering of funds: The black market peso exchangers use the funds to purchase monetary instruments such as checks, money orders, or wire transfers, or to pay for the goods ordered by the South American importers.

Integration of funds: The South American importers receive the goods or the monetary instruments and use them to pay for their imports or to sell them for pesos in the local market.

1: Black Market Peso Exchange in Money Laundering - Financial Crime Academy

2: Overview - FinCEN.gov

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) is a global network of FIUs that facilitates and promotes the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes1. The Egmont Group has developed operational guidance for international cooperation and information exchange among FIUs, which includes channels, procedures, and forms for making and receiving requests2. Filing a request under Egmont guidelines is therefore a common and effective way for a regulatory body to obtain international assistance in a money laundering inquiry, as it ensures that the request is made through the appropriate and secure channel, and that it meets the standards and expectations of the requested FIU.

1: Home - Egmont Group

2: EGMONT GROUP OF FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNITS OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR …

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

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

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

Financial Action Task Force - Wikipedia, Typologies.

 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.

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

According to the CAMS Study Guide, EDD is a higher level of scrutiny applied to customers who pose a greater risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. EDD may include obtaining additional information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, businessactivities, beneficial owners, and expected transactions. Details on individuals with control over the account are relevant for EDD, as they may indicate the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs), sanctioned individuals, or other high-risk entities. Therefore, this information should be gathered as part of EDD for a high-risk customer.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 121.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Egmont Group and CAMS 6th Edition, PPPs benefit FIUs by:

A: “PPPs help address challenges around data protection and facilitate information sharing between public and private sectors, overcoming common legal barriers.”

B: “PPPs result in higher-quality reports from the private sector and provide valuable additional informational input for FIUs.”

E: “These partnerships give FIUs increased flexibility and agility, allowing them to respond dynamically to evolving ML/TF threats.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Egmont Group Guidance on PPPs; Egmont Group, Public-Private Partnerships for FIUs)

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 principlesand 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.

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

TheAML analyst must gather additional informationbefore determining if an alert is suspicious.

Option C (Correct):Requesting information from the relationship managerhelps determineif the transaction is in line with the customer’s profile.

Option A (Incorrect):Below-the-line testingis useful forcalibrating AML models, but it doesnot help in real-time case evaluation.

Option B (Incorrect):Directly contacting a counterparty bankmaynot be appropriatewithout internal analysis first.

Option D (Incorrect):Restricting accessis aserious actionthat should only be takenafter a full investigation.

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

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

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

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

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

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