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

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

References:

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

Anti-money laundering – a guide to customer due diligence

Customer due diligence | The Law Society

The line of business is responsible for creating, implementing and maintaining policies and procedures, as well as communicating these to all personnel. It must also establish processes for screening employees to ensure high ethical and professional standards and deliver appropriate training on AML policies and procedures based on roles and functions performed so employees aware of their responsibilities. To facilitate this, employees should be trained as soon as possible after being hired, with refresher training as appropriate.

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

FATF Recommendation 40: Other Forms of International Co-operation

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

Wolfsberg Group

Egmont Group

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

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 184

What steps should the institution take? - Exam4Training

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

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

References:

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

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

 According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a global network of FIUs that promotes information exchange and cooperation, FIUs making requests to another FIU should disclose the reason and purpose for the request, and provide feedback on how the information was used12. These actions are intended to enhance mutual trust, transparency, and accountability between FIUs, and to facilitate the effective use of financial intelligence and information for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes12. FIUs making requests should also respect the confidentiality and data protection requirements of the FIU receiving the request, and avoid imposing unreasonable or unduly restrictive conditions12.

FIUs making requests should not send the same request to all FIUs, as this would be inefficient, unnecessary, and potentially harmful. FIUs should only send requests to FIUs that are relevant and competent to provide the information they need, based on the nature and scope of the case12. Sending the same request to all FIUs could overload the system, create duplication, and compromise the security and confidentiality of the information12. FIUs making requests should also make best efforts to provide complete and factual information, but this is not an action they should take when submitting a request, but rather when responding to a request from another FIU12.

References:

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

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

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

References:

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

ACAMS website, section on CAMS certification

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other three options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

References:

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

Sanctions screening and transaction monitoring rules are two of the most common controls that FIs use to identify suspicious money-laundering activity. Sanctions screening is the process of checking customers, transactions, and counterparties against various lists of sanctioned individuals, entities, and countries issued by national and international authorities. Sanctions screening helps FIs to avoid doing business with or facilitating the activities of those who are involved in terrorism, proliferation, human rights violations, or other criminal activities. Transaction monitoring rules are the criteria or scenarios that FIs use to detect unusual or potentially suspicious patterns of transactions or behaviors of customers or accounts. Transaction monitoring rules help FIs to identify transactions that deviate from the expected norms, such as large cash deposits, frequent wire transfers, or transactions with high-risk jurisdictions. Transaction monitoring rules also help FIs to comply with their reporting obligations, such as filing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) or Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs).

References: = ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Chapter 4: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, Section 4.2: Customer Identification Program (CIP) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD); Money laundering and terrorist financing, Section: Anti Money Laundering (AML) regulations; The Three Stages Of Money Laundering And How Money Laundering Works, Section: How to Prevent Money Laundering.

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

References:

FFIEC BSA/AML Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program - BSA Compliance Officer, section “BSA Compliance Officer”, paragraph 3: “The BSA compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is implemented effectively, including timely updates in response to changes in regulations or business activities, and for managing all aspects of the BSA/AML compliance program. The BSA compliance officer is also responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is communicated to all personnel and that adequate training is provided to appropriate personnel.”

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

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

ACAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist | ACAMS2

Anti-Money Laundering – The Law Society of Singapore3

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other two options are incorrect because:

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

Egmont Group

Working Groups - Egmont Group

Overview of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units | FinCEN.gov

Egmont Group - Qatar Financial Information Unit

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

Economic sanctions are penalties imposed by one or more countries against another country, group, or individual for violating international norms or threatening national interests1. The ultimate goal of economic sanctions is to protect national security by changing the behavior or policies of the target, or by weakening its capabilities or resources2. Sanctions can be used to advance various foreign policy objectives, such as counterterrorism, nonproliferation, democracy promotion, human rights protection, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity1. Sanctions can take different forms, such as travel bans, asset freezes, trade embargoes, arms restrictions, and aid reductions1. Sanctions can be applied unilaterally by one country, or multilaterally by a coalition of countries or an international organization, such as the United Nations or the European Union1.

References:

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

2: How Economic Sanctions Work - Investopedia

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Principles for Correspondent Banking, one of the key aspects of establishing and maintaining a correspondent relationship is to conduct a risk-based due diligence on the respondent bank, which includes obtaining approval from at least one person other than the person sponsoring the relationship12. This is to ensure that the correspondent bank has a clear understanding of the nature, purpose, and expected activity of the relationship, as well as the respondent bank’s ownership, governance, AML policies, and customer base12.

Another aspect of the Wolfsberg AML Principles is to recognize and assess the factors that may increase the risk inherent in a correspondent relationship, such as the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs), the presence of downstream (nested) correspondents, the geographic location of the respondent bank and its customers, and the types of products and services offered by the respondent bank12. These factors may require enhanced due diligence, monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities by the correspondent bank, as well as the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures12.

References:

1: Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 20221

2: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking2

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

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

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

References:

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

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

Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, Chapter 2, page 29

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

References:

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

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

References:

1: UN Sanctions1

2: UN Charter, Chapter VII2

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs1

Understanding Money Laundering in Casinos | ComplyAdvantage2

Casino Money Laundering: Red Flag Indicators - Alessa3

The first line training program is the training that is provided to the employees who are directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the business, such as sales, customer service, or compliance staff1. The first line training program should cover the essential knowledge and skills that are required for the employees to perform their roles effectively and in compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) policies and procedures of the organization2. The first line training program should also be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the business environment, the regulatory framework, the customer base, the products and services, or the risk assessment of the organization2.

Among the four activities listed, the one that would require an update to the first line training program is the expansion to customer segments that will utilize newly established products. This is because the new customer segments and products may pose different or higher AML/CFT risks than the existing ones, and the employees need to be aware of these risks and how to mitigate them. For example, the new customer segments may include politically exposed persons, non-resident customers, or high-net-worth individuals, who may have higher exposure to corruption, tax evasion, or fraud risks3. The new products may include prepaid cards, mobile payments, or cryptocurrencies, which may have higher vulnerability to money laundering, terrorist financing, or cybercrime risks. Therefore, the first line training program should be updated to include the relevant information and guidance on how to identify, verify, monitor, and report these new customer segments and products, and how to apply the appropriate customer due diligence and transaction monitoring measures2.

The other three activities do not necessarily require an update to the first line training program, unless they involve significant changes in the AML/CFT policies and procedures of the organization. The implementation of a new system that provides information for monitoring customer accounts may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing AML/CFT processes, but it does not change the nature or level of the AML/CFT risks. The maintenance of regulatory requirements for onboarding documentation collections of a customer base is a routine and ongoing task that should already be covered by the existing first line training program. The onboarding of a new customer type which was previously reviewed and risk rated does not introduce any new AML/CFT risks, as long as the risk rating and the corresponding controls are consistent with the organization’s risk appetite and policy.

References:

1: What is First Line of Defense? | Definition and Overview

2: Training and Awareness | FATF

3: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) | FATF

: Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers | FATF

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the institution should develop a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. This is because the customer’s behavior and profile may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:

Operating an import-export business, which is a common sector for trade-based money laundering, where trade transactions are used to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under-invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents1.

Receiving funds from a jurisdiction perceived as highly corrupt, which may increase the risk of the funds being derived from bribery, embezzlement, fraud, or other predicate offences2. Transparency International is a global civil society organization that publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, which ranks countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption based on expert assessments and surveys3.

Making frequent transfers among the accounts, which may indicate a layering technique, where funds are moved through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership of the funds4.

Preferring to manage the accounts separately, which may indicate a lack of transparency or an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the institution.

By developing a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts, the institution can:

Identify and verify the identity and beneficial ownership of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.

Obtain and verify information on the nature and purpose of the business relationship and the source and destination of the funds.

Conduct a risk assessment of the customer and the transactions based on the customer’s profile, behavior, and geographic locations.

Apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures for higher-risk customers and transactions, such as obtaining additional information, documentation, or approval, or conducting more frequent or in-depth reviews.

Detect and report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

The other three options are incorrect because:

File a suspicious transaction report is not the best answer, as it is a reactive measure that should be taken after the institution has identified or suspected money laundering or terrorist financing activity, not before. The institution should first conduct due diligence and monitoring of the customer and the transactions, and then file a report if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the activity is suspicious or unusual.

Diminish the importance of the subjective Transparency International rating is not the best answer, as it is a complacent and irresponsible attitude that may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, reputational, or operational risks. The Transparency International rating is not subjective, but based on credible sources and methodologies, and it is widely used as a reference by governments, businesses, civil society, and the public to assess the level of corruption in different countries3. The institution should not ignore or downplay the rating, but rather use it as one of the factors to evaluate the risk of the customer and the transactions.

Conduct a trade-price manipulation analysis is not the best answer, as it is a specific and technical measure that may not be sufficient or appropriate to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. A trade-price manipulation analysis is a method of detecting trade-based money laundering by comparing the prices of goods or services in a transaction with the market prices or other benchmarks, and identifying any significant discrepancies or anomalies. However, this measure may not be feasible or effective if the institution does not have access to reliable and comparable data, or if the goods or services are not standardized or homogeneous. Moreover, this measure may not address other aspects of the risk, such as the identity, ownership, or behavior of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 108 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 107 3: Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 3 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 104 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 109

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

References:

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

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

What We Do, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

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

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

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

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

The other option is incorrect because:

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

References:

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

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the most common methods of placement is to deposit cash into a bank account, either directly or through intermediaries. This allows the money launderer to introduce the illicit funds into the legitimate financial system, and to create a paper trail that can be used to justify the source of the funds. However, this method also exposes the money launderer to the risk of detection by the bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures, such as customer identification, transaction monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities1.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 271

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 professional course 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.

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

FATF Recommendation 11, paragraph 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buying and selling of real property or business entities

Managing of client money, securities, or other assets

Opening or managing bank, savings, or securities accounts

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

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

References:

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

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

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

V

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

2: Guidance on Risk Factors, EBA, 2021

 The key goal of EU Directives on money laundering is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across the EU to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, and to align EU policy with international standards and best practices. EU Directives are legal acts that set out the objectives and principles that member states must achieve, but leave the choice of methods and measures to the national authorities. EU Directives on money laundering aim to harmonize the rules and obligations for FIs and other obliged entities in the areas of customer due diligence, record-keeping, reporting, supervision, and sanctions. They also aim to address the emerging threats and vulnerabilities of the financial system, such as the use of virtual assets, prepaid cards, high-risk third countries, and beneficial ownership. By creating a consistent regulatory environment across the EU, the Directives seek to enhance the effectiveness and cooperation of the AML/CFT regime, and to protect the integrity and stability of the internal market and the financial system.

References:

1: Guide to EU Anti Money Laundering Directives (AMLD) - ComplyAdvantage1

2: Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex2

3: EU context of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism3

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/]

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

The 40 Recommendations provide a complete set of countermeasures against money laundering

and terrorist financing, covering

• the identification of risks and development of appropriate policies;

• the criminal justice system and law enforcement;

• the financial system and its regulation;

• the transparency of legal persons and arrangements; and

• international cooperation.

Results of related audits and examinations are the most useful report for an anti-money laundering specialist to inform senior management about the status of the anti-money laundering program across the organization. This is because audits and examinations provide an independent and objective assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance of the anti-money laundering program, as well as identify any gaps, weaknesses, or areas for improvement. Audits and examinations can also help senior management to monitor the performance of the anti-money laundering program, ensure accountability and oversight, and demonstrate commitment to regulatory expectations and best practices.

References:

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

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 39.

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

References:

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street

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

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

According to the 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.

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

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

APG website, section on Typologies

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

CFATF website, section on Mutual Evaluations

Based on the USA PATRIOT Act, one action that the US might take to demonstrate extraterritorial reach is to send requests for information to a non-US based financial institution (FI). The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the authority of the US government to issue subpoenas and other legal orders to foreign banks that maintain a correspondent account in the US, requiring them to produce records relating to such account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the US12. This provision was intended to enhance the ability of the US to investigate and prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing activities that involve foreign FIs3.

References:

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

2: Britannica, USA PATRIOT Act, History & Society

3: Princeton Legal Journal, FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act: Reforms and Legal Implications

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

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

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

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

References:

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

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

3: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 313

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

: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 311

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course

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

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.

References:

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

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

Financial Action Task Force - Wikipedia, Typologies.

 The financial institution should perform further investigation to verify the legitimacy of the tour guide’s explanation and the source of funds. If the investigation reveals any suspicious or unusual activity, such as inconsistent cash flow patterns, involvement of high-risk customers or jurisdictions, or indications of money laundering or terrorist financing, the financial institution should report the activity to the authorities and consider terminating the relationship. The financial institution should also document the investigation and its findings, and update the customer’s risk profile accordingly.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 112

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 1, Task 1.2, Skill 1.2.2

ACAMS MoneyLaundering.com, Article: “How to Conduct Effective Customer Due Diligence”

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org1

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

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

References:

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

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.

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

The board of directors has the ultimate responsibility within a bank for ensuring that the bank has a comprehensive and effective BSA/AML program and oversight framework that is reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) BSA/AML Examination Manual, the board of directors must approve the BSA/AML compliance program, which includes the BSA/AML policy, internal controls, independent testing, designated BSA/AML compliance officer, and training1. The board of directors must also provide sufficient resources, ensure qualified staff, and hold senior management accountable for implementing and adhering to the BSA/AML compliance program1.

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

 The compliance officer should provide regular updates of corrective action to the designated board committee, as they are ultimately responsible for the oversight of the organization’s anti-money laundering program. The board committee should be informed of the audit findings, the corrective action plan, the progress and challenges, and the completion of the remediation. This will help ensure that the board committee is aware of the risks and issues, and can provide guidance and support to the compliance officer and the management.

References: =

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 671

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.52

ACAMS CAMS Certification Flashcards, Question 893

One of the main challenges and risks for online banks is the verification of customer identity and the prevention of identity fraud. Online banks are more vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing because they do not have face-to-face contact with their customers and may rely on third-party sources or digital methods to verify customer information. Therefore, the most important recommendation for the anti-money laundering expert to make is that the online bank ensures that prospective new customers can be properly identified and that their identity documents and information are verified using reliable and independent sources. This is also in line with the international standards and best practices for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, such as the FATF Recommendations, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, and the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive123

The other options are less important or less effective than ensuring customer identification. Limiting the amount that can be processed per transaction may reduce the exposure to large-scale money laundering, but it does not prevent the use of multiple transactions or accounts to launder smaller amounts. Setting up automated programs to analyze transactions for money laundering activity may enhance the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions, but it does not address the root cause of money laundering, which is the concealment of the source and ownership of illicit funds. Ensuring that a firewall is set up to protect the transactions may improve the security and confidentiality of the online banking system, but it does not prevent the misuse of the system by money launderers who have legitimate access to the system123

References:

1: Anti-Money Laundering Guide for Digital Banks by sanctions.io, 2022

2: The fight against money laundering: Machine learning is a game changer by McKinsey, 2021

3: FATF Guidance on Digital Identity, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 191

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

Learn more

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

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

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

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

quizlet.com

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

References:

ACAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 191

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

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

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

From Microsoft Start Partners

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

-A is the primary correspondent bank.

-B is the respondent bank.

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pages 86-87

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

The method of purchasing chips with cash and redeeming them for a check is used to launder money in casinos. This is because the check can be deposited into a bank account or cashed at another location, creating a paper trail that appears to be legitimate. The check can also be used to conceal the source and amount of the cash, as well as the identity of the person who obtained it. This method is also known as “chip washing” or “chip dumping” and is one of the common ways that money launderers exploit casinos12.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, p. 32-33 2: FATF Report: Money Laundering through the Physical Transportation of Cash, October 2015, p. 28-29, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/money-laundering-through-transportation-cash.pdf

According to the web search results, 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 money laundering and terrorist financing methods and trends using standards and templates used for FATF typologies reports12. Typologies are the various techniques used to launder money or finance terrorism, and typologies reports are the documents that describe these techniques, identify the vulnerabilities and risks, and provide case studies and best practices to prevent and detect them3. The FATF and its FSRBs produce typologies reports on a regular basis, covering different topics and sectors relevant to their regions and the global community3. By conducting regional-level research and analysis, FSRBs can enhance their understanding of the specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats and challenges faced by their member countries, and provide them with useful guidance and recommendations to mitigate these risks12.

The other options are not correct because they are either not the methods used by FSRBs to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions, or they are not consistent with the FATF standards and expectations. Requiring member countries to develop statistical metrics over money laundering and terrorist financing crimes may be a useful way to measure the effectiveness of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) systems, but it is not a method used by FSRBs to understand the risks in their regions. Rather, it is a requirement imposed by the FATF on all countries to collect and maintain comprehensive statistics on matters relevant to the effectiveness and efficiency of their AML/CFT systems4. Requiring participating financial institutions of their members to file suspicious transaction reports (STRs) to the regional body may be a violation of the FATF standards, which state that financial institutions should report any suspicious transactions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) of their country, not to any regional or international body5. Moreover, STRs are confidential and protected by legal provisions, and should not be disclosed to any third party without the consent of the FIU5. Conducting global research on money laundering and terrorist financing trends and reporting their findings in their own typologies report may be a duplication of the FATF’s work, as the FATF is the global standard-setter and policy-maker for AML/CFT, and produces typologies reports that cover the global trends and issues3. FSRBs should focus on the regional-level research and analysis, and coordinate and cooperate with the FATF and other FSRBs to share information and experiences12.

References: 5678910

According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 37, one of the red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing is the use of nominees, trusts, or third parties to hide the identity, ownership, or control of the funds or assets involved in the transaction. Nominees are individuals or entities that act on behalf of the actual or beneficial owners of a company, trust, or account, and may be used to conceal the source, destination, or purpose of the funds or assets. Nominees may also be used to evade taxes, sanctions, or regulatory requirements.

In this case, the compliance officer is unable to verify the identity of the beneficial owners of the company, and only information on the nominee owners was provided. This raises the suspicion that the company may be involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities, and that the nominee owners may be acting as fronts or intermediaries for the actual or beneficial owners. The compliance officer should conduct further due diligence on the company, the nominee owners, and the beneficial owners, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

References:

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

Beneficial Ownership Meaning and Regulation - Investopedia

What is a nominee shareholder? | LawBite

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

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

The correct answer is A and C. Law enforcement should determine who are the signatories on the account and examine the flow of money from the company to the individual in an effort to determine if it is legitimate. These steps would help to identify the source and destination of the funds, the purpose and nature of the transactions, and the possible involvement of money laundering or other financial crimes. Asking the bank for the history of the multi-level marketing company (B) may not be relevant or useful, as the company may have a legitimate business model or a false front. Examining possible Suspicious Activity Report information received from the local Financial Intelligence Units (D) may be helpful, but it is not a necessary step, as the bank may not have filed any reports or the reports may not contain sufficient information.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, Lesson 1: Investigating Techniques for Law Enforcement

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, Section 4.1: Investigating Techniques for Law Enforcement, pp. 125-126

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

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

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

References: =

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS1

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

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

What Is An AML Officer1

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the employee should report the conversation to the compliance officer because the colleague is engaging in tipping off, which is a serious violation of anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Tipping off is the act of informing a person or entity that they are the subject of a suspicious transaction report or an investigation, or providing any information that may compromise or impede the investigation. Tipping off can result in criminal penalties, civil liabilities, and disciplinary actions for the individual and the institution. Therefore, the employee has a duty to report the colleague’s misconduct to the compliance officer, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and taking appropriate corrective actions.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 97

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

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, video 3.4: Tipping Off and Confidentiality

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 8, Answer B

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the red flags for money laundering in loan transactions is “the use of shell companies or other legal entities whose ownership is not transparent or whose beneficial owners are unknown” (p. 223). Money launderers may use such entities to hide their identity and the source of their funds, or to create complex layers of transactions to obscure the trail of money. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering risk, as they could be explained by legitimate factors such as the location of the property, the repayment schedule, or the choice of attorney.

References:

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

MLO Mentor: Anti-Money Laundering 1

Compliance Obligations of Certain Loan or Finance Company Affiliates of Federally Regulated Banks and Other Financial Institutions 2

 The integration stage of money laundering is where the illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate financial system, making them appear as lawful income or assets. This may include using multiple accounts, transferring funds between different banks or jurisdictions, and engaging in various financial activities to legitimize the illicit funds. The integration stage aims to make the illicit funds appear legitimate and indistinguishable from lawful funds within the financial system1.

Option C is an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it involves moving the illicit funds from one bank account to another, creating a complex trail of transactions that obscures the origin and ownership of the funds. This technique is also known as wire transfer laundering or electronic funds transfer laundering2.

Option A is an example of the placement stage of money laundering, as it involves depositing the illicit funds into the financial system for the first time, using a front company as a cover for the illegal source of the funds. A front company is a legitimate business that is used to conceal or facilitate illicit activity.

Option B is an example of the layering stage of money laundering, as it involves converting the illicit cash into other forms of value that are less conspicuous and easier to move, such as negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments are documents that promise payment to a specified person or the bearer, such as checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks.

Option D is not an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it does not involve any financial transactions or accounts. It is rather an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving the purchase of goods or services, such as a luxury vehicle, with the illicit funds that had previously been deposited and layered through the financial system.

References:

1: Integration Stage of Money Laundering: Bank or Deposit-Taking Institution

2: Process of Money Laundering: Placement, Layering, Integration - Tutorial

: ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 32

: ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 34

: The Three Stages Of Money Laundering And How Money Laundering Works

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

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

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

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

 According to Article 1(3) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, 4AMLD), “knowledge, intent or purpose” required as an element for money laundering may be inferred from objective factual circumstances. This means that the prosecution does not need to prove the actual state of mind of the offender, but can rely on the evidence of the surrounding facts and circumstances that indicate the offender’s awareness or intention to launder money. This is consistent with the approach of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which defines money laundering as the intentional act of concealing or disguising the origin of criminal proceeds.

References:

Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex, Article 1(3).

Preventing abuse of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing, Summary.

New Directive on Criminalisation of Money Laundering - eucrim, Introduction.

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

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

References:

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

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

References:

FATF website

FATF 40 Recommendations - February 2012

FATF Recommendation 5 - Criminalisation of Terrorist Financing

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

References: https://egmontgroup.org/

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

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

References:

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

Wire stripping is a technique used by money launderers to remove or alter information that identifies the originator or beneficiary of a wire transfer, in order to avoid detection or tracing. To detect wire stripping, a bank employee should compare the wire transaction as it enters and after it leaves the bank, and look for any discrepancies or missing information in the fields related to the originator or beneficiary. The employee should also check for suspicious phrases usually used to conceal originator or beneficiary identity, such as “for further credit”, “in favor of”, “on behalf of”, or “as instructed”.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.21

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.31

ACAMS Chapter 3 Exam Questions, Question 792

FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership, Section 3.23

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.

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

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

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

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

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

Accountants can be involved in money laundering schemes in various ways, either knowingly or unknowingly. Some of the common methods that accountants can use to launder money are:

Overstating income to hide excess cash: This method involves inflating the revenues or profits of a business to conceal the origin of illicit funds. For example, an accountant can create fake invoices or receipts to justify the deposit of cash from illegal sources into the business account. This can make the cash appear as legitimate income from the business operations.

Acting as a conduit for transferring cash between accounts: This method involves using the accountant’s own account or a third-party account to move funds around and obscure the audit trail. For example, an accountant can receive cash from a client and deposit it into their own account, then transfer it to another account or withdraw it in a different location. This can make it difficult to trace the source and destination of the funds.

Acting as a designee for someone who wishes to hide their identity: This method involves using the accountant’s name or credentials to open accounts or conduct transactions on behalf of a client who wants to remain anonymous. For example, an accountant can act as a nominee director or shareholder for a shell company that is used to launder money. This can make it appear as if the accountant is the owner or beneficiary of the funds, while the actual owner or beneficiary is hidden.

References:

Money Laundering: What It Is and How to Prevent It - Investopedia, The Process of Laundering Money

Revealed: accountants aiding money laundering - Accountancy Age, Accountants’ methods

Accountants in the anti-money laundering front line, Accountants’ obligations

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/119840NCJRS.pdf

Money laundering and terrorist financing are both forms of financial crime that involve the movement of illicit funds. However, they differ in the source and purpose of the funds. Money laundering is the process of disguising the origin, ownership, or destination of funds that are derived from illegal activities, such as drug trafficking, fraud, or tax evasion. Terrorist financing is the provision or collection of funds, by legitimate or illegitimate means, for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should consider the following factors in developing a compliance program:

Related practices are used to conceal the nature of the funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use similar methods to hide the true identity, source, or destination of the funds, such as using shell companies, front organizations, complex transactions, cash couriers, or cryptoassets. A compliance program should include measures to identify and verify the customers, beneficial owners, and counterparties involved in the transactions, as well as to monitor and report any suspicious or unusual activities.

Similar techniques are used to move funds. Both money launderers and terrorist financiers use the same stages of placement, layering, and integration to move funds through the financial system. Placement is the introduction of illicit funds into the legitimate financial system, such as by depositing cash, purchasing assets, or transferring funds electronically. Layering is the separation of the funds from their source, such as by using multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or intermediaries. Integration is the re-entry of the funds into the legitimate economy, such as by investing in businesses, real estate, or securities. A compliance program should include measures to detect and prevent the movement of illicit funds through the financial system, such as by applying risk-based due diligence, record-keeping, and transaction limits.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs

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

 Before disclosing any supporting documentation for a suspicious transaction report (STR) to a law enforcement agency, the financial institution should confirm that the request is legitimate and authorized by verifying the identity and credentials of the requester1. This is to prevent unauthorized access or misuse of the confidential information by impostors or fraudsters. The other options are not true, as they may either compromise the security, integrity, or timeliness of the disclosure, or violate the confidentiality or privacy rights of the customer.

References:

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 117

FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 20132, p. 20

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 20173, p. 11

 According to the BSA/AML Manual1, one purpose of filing SARs is to identify violations or potential violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for criminal investigation. Therefore, when an institution receives a document request from law enforcement with regard to an STR that the institution has filed, it should cooperate and provide the documents that were previously collected to support the STR. This will help the law enforcement agency to conduct its investigation and follow up on the suspicious activity reported by the institution. The institution should also maintain the confidentiality of the STR and the document request, and avoid tipping off the customer or any other person involved in the suspicious activity.

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations2

Suspicious Transaction Report STR3

as there's NO mitigating control, the temporary control system must be developed and implemented until the permanent mitigating control is developed and implemented.

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

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

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

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

References:

Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing

UNUSUAL CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCES

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

Financial Action Task Force (FATF)-style regional bodies (FSRBs) are organizations that associate countries from the same region or that face similar challenges to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. FSRBs have the same objectives as the FATF, which are to set international standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures to prevent and combat money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the main functions of FSRBs is to provide technical assistance and training to their members in implementing the FATF recommendations, which are the global standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. FSRBs also conduct mutual evaluations of their members to assess their level of compliance with the FATF recommendations and provide follow-up reports and actions.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.11

Certification Candidate Handbook, Section 3.22

FATF website, About Us, FATF-Style Regional Bodies3

The European Union Money Laundering Directives (AMLDs) are issued periodically by the European Parliament to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing and establish a consistent regulatory environment across the EU1. They apply to all member states of the European Union and require them to enact laws and/or regulations to comply with the directives2. The directives are legally binding and set forth minimum standards and obligations for financial institutions and other entities within the member states3. The directives do not set forth non-binding best practices, but rather harmonize the AML/CFT rules and procedures across the EU4. The directives do not have extraterritorial impact and do not apply to states that have diplomatic relations with member states, unless they are part of the European Economic Area (EEA) or have equivalent AML/CFT regimes5.

References: 1: Guide to EU Anti Money Laundering Directives (AMLD) - ComplyAdvantage 2: Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex 3: EU context of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism - European Commission 4: EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLD) | LSEG - Refinitiv 5: Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package - European Commission

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.

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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 potential money 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.

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

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

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

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, the ultimate responsibility for an institution’s anti-money laundering program rests with the institution’s board of directors. The board of directors is responsible for creating a culture of compliance, approving the AML policies and procedures, appointing the AML compliance officer, overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the AML program, and ensuring adequate resources and training are provided to the staff. The board of directors is also accountable for any deficiencies or violations of the AML program and must take corrective actions when necessary.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

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 and that 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.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

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

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 6, pages 132-133

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

Enhanced due diligence (EDD) is a higher level of customer due diligence that is required for customers or accounts that pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. According to the FATF Recommendations, EDD measures may include obtaining additional information on the customer, the beneficial owner, the intended nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of funds, and the reasons for transactions. EDD is also required for customers or accounts that are from or in countries that do not have adequate AML/CFT systems or are subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Among the four categories of customers or accounts listed in the question, lawyers, foreign exchange dealers, and precious metal dealers are considered as high-risk by the FATF and other international standards, and therefore require EDD. Lawyers may be involved in transactions that conceal the origin or ownership of illicit funds, such as creating shell companies, trusts, or foundations. Foreign exchange dealers may facilitate the movement of illicit funds across borders or jurisdictions, or provide anonymous or pseudonymous services. Precious metal dealers may deal with high-value goods that are easily convertible into cash, or may be used to launder proceeds of crime or evade sanctions.

Retail account holders, on the other hand, are generally considered as low-risk customers or accounts, unless they exhibit unusual or suspicious behavior or transactions. Therefore, they do not require EDD by default, but only when there are specific indicators of higher risk.

References:

[ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition], Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 75-76, 79-80.

FATF Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services, October 2016, pp. 7-8, 12-13.

Customer Due Diligence - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 5-6.

Customer due diligence, The Law Society, accessed on February 9, 2024.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Source Tool for Broker-Dealers, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 16, 2022, pp. 1-2, 5-6.

On-line banking offers a significant money laundering risk to a financial institution because:

The nature of on-line banking can make it difficult to establish who is controlling the account. On-line banking allows customers to access their accounts remotely, without face-to-face contact with the financial institution. This can pose challenges for verifying the identity and legitimacy of the account holder, especially if the account is opened on-line or through a third-party intermediary. On-line banking can also facilitate the use of anonymous or fictitious identities, or the use of proxies or nominees to hide the true beneficial owner of the account.

The ease of access through the internet enables cross border movement of funds. On-line banking allows customers to transfer funds quickly and easily across different jurisdictions, without physical movement of cash or other instruments. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as funds can be moved to or from high-risk countries or regions, or through multiple accounts or financial institutions, to obscure the origin, destination, or purpose of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to access or use alternative payment systems or virtual currencies, which may have lower regulatory oversight or transparency standards than traditional banking systems.

The speed of electronic transaction enables execution of multiple complex transactions within short time frame. On-line banking allows customers to conduct transactions in real time, with minimal or no human intervention or verification. This can increase the risk of money laundering, as customers can execute multiple transactions in a short period of time, or use complex transaction structures or patterns, to avoid detection or reporting thresholds, or to conceal the source, nature, or ownership of the funds. On-line banking can also enable customers to use automated or algorithmic trading systems, which may generate large volumes of transactions that are difficult to monitor or analyze.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pages 139-140

CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.1, Skill 2.1.1

Online Banking and Money Laundering, ACAMS Today, September 2012

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

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

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

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

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

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

Microstructuring is a method of money laundering that involves breaking down large transactions into smaller amounts that are below the reporting threshold or the level of scrutiny of financial institutions. One of the red flags of microstructuring is frequent visits to make cash deposits of nominal amounts, as this may indicate an attempt to avoid detection and conceal the source or destination of illicit funds. Other red flags of microstructuring include checking accounts receiving cash deposits in amounts under $1,000 as infrequently as several times a month, followed by ATM withdrawals in foreign countries, or deposits that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity.

References:

FinCEN Advisory – FIN-2010-A001, page 4

Red Flags of Money Laundering | PPT, slide 9

Red Flags of Microstructuring | CAMS Exam Preparation | ACAMS

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.”

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.

References:

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

2: Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire (2017)

3: The FATF Recommendations - Financial Action Task Force

4: Risk-Based Approach for the Banking Sector - Financial Action Task Force

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.

The red flags that most likely triggered the referral are:

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

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

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

The FATF Regional Style Bodies (FSRBs) are autonomous regional organizations that help the FATF implement 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.

References:

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

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

Money laundering can have serious consequences for financial institutions. They may face increased investigation costs and fines from regulators and law enforcement agencies for failing to detect or prevent money laundering activities. Additionally, money laundering can result in a loss of profitable business as customers and counterparties may no longer want to do business with the institution due to its reputation for being associated with illicit activity.

Law enforcement should obtain documentation from an institution when suspicious activity was identified by either requesting copies of the relevant documents from the accountable institution or acquiring a search warrant to obtain the documents. These are the legal and proper ways to access the supporting documentation that the institution is required to maintain for five years after filing a suspicious activity report (SAR). The institution must provide the documentation upon request by FinCEN or an appropriate law enforcement or supervisory agency, and should verify the identity and authority of the requestor. Law enforcement can also obtain a search warrant from a court if they have probable cause to believe that the documents contain evidence of a crime.

References:

Suspicious Activity Report Supporting Documentation

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations, Question 1.

Obtaining Documentation from an Institution: Law Enforcement Procedures

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a sound KYC program should include four essential elements: customer acceptance policy, customer identification, on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts, and risk management1. Customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the financial institution (FI) is willing to accept and the criteria for doing so. Customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers and obtaining information on their activities and sources of funds. On-going monitoring of higher risk accounts involves reviewing the transactions and behavior of the customers that pose higher risks of money laundering or terrorist financing and updating their information and risk profiles. Risk management involves establishing appropriate policies, procedures, controls, and audit functions to ensure the effective implementation and oversight of the KYC program1.

References:

1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision - Bank for International Settlements1

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, one of the essential components of customer due diligence is verifying the identity of the customer using reliable and independent sources. This verification process should be done before or during the establishment of the business relationship, and should not be delayed unless there is a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, and the delay is necessary to avoid interrupting the normal course of business. Therefore, after customers have provided acceptable identification, the financial institution should next confirm the validity of the customer information, as option A suggests. Option B is not necessary, as an electronic picture of each customer is not a mandatory requirement for customer verification, and may not be feasible or effective in some cases. Option C is not the next step, as closely monitoring the account for 30 days is part of the ongoing due diligence process, which should be performed after the customer verification is completed and the account is established. Option D is not advisable, as establishing the account based on the information provided without verifying its validity may expose the financial institution to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, and may violate the KYC and AML regulations.

References:

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pages 69-70.

 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.

References: = 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

 The Board of Directors is the primary governing body of a financial institution and has the fiduciary duty to oversee and approve the BSA/AML compliance program. One of the key responsibilities of the Board is to ensure the appointment of a qualified chief AML officer who has the authority, expertise, and resources to implement and manage the BSA/AML program effectively. The chief AML officer is accountable to the Board and senior management for the performance of the BSA/AML program and should report regularly on the status, issues, and challenges of the program. The Board should also evaluate the chief AML officer’s performance and provide feedback and guidance as needed.

References:

The Board’s Role in AML Compliance

Board Member Responsibilities for BSA/AML Compliance

Responsibilities of the Board of Directors in Implementing a Successful AML Program

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

References:

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

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

Reputational risk is the potential for negative publicity, public perception, or legal action to adversely affect a financial entity’s image, brand, or customer loyalty1. Violating AML laws can have significant reputational risks for financial entities, as they may be perceived as facilitating or enabling money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. This can result in a loss of trust, credibility, and revenue from existing and potential customers, especially those who are high-profile, sensitive, or socially responsible23. Moreover, violating AML laws can also attract negative media attention, regulatory scrutiny, and legal action, which can further damage the reputation of the financial entity and expose it to additional sanctions, fines, or penalties4.

References:

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 16

2: ComplyAdvantage, 5 AML Reputational Risk Considerations for 2023, link

3: Exam-Answer, Reputational Risk Consequences for Violating AML Laws, link

4: Unit21, 8 AML Penalties, Fines, and Sanctions + Examples You Should Avoid, link

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

References:

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

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

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

The 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.

References:

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The internal review would most likely recommend that the institution provide product-specific anti-money laundering training to all relevant employees, not just actuaries. This is because life insurance products can be used for money laundering purposes, such as purchasing policies with illicit funds, surrendering policies for cash value, or using policies as collateral for loans. Therefore, all employees who are involved in selling, servicing, or processing life insurance products should be aware of the money laundering risks and red flags associated with these products, and how to report any suspicious activity. The institution should also ensure that the training is timely, effective, and tailored to the specific roles and responsibilities of the employees.

The other options are not as relevant or appropriate as the correct answer. Option A is too broad, as not all staff need to be trained on anti-money laundering, only those who are relevant to the institution’s business activities and exposure to money laundering risks. Option C is too narrow, as it only focuses on actuaries and does not address the need for training other employees who may deal with life insurance products. Option D is not sufficient, as e-learning alone may not be effective in ensuring that employees understand and retain the anti-money laundering content, and the institution should also conduct follow-up assessments to measure the impact and outcomes of the training.

References:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 57.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 3.5: Training and Testing.

Best Practices for Anti-Money Laundering Compliance - DIRO Original, Section 3: Adequate Training.

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

References:

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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)

The customer’s business activity as a domestic carpet cleaning company is not inherently suspicious, as it aligns with their registered business. However, the significant weekly transactions from an international reputable antique auction house raise red flags.

The sudden increase in the customer’s initial international receipt from $15,000 USD to an average of $30,000 USD per transaction per week is also noteworthy. Such a substantial change warrants further scrutiny.

The fact that 90% of the incoming deposits are matched by cash outgoings to non-related individuals could indicate layering or structuring activities associated with money laundering.

Overall, the combination of large international transactions, increased receipts, and cash outflows to unrelated parties from an antique auction house is the most concerning aspect.

References:

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

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

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

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

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, business activities, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

An effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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.

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

References:

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

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

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

References:

USA PATRIOT Act

Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act

Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act

A National Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has three primary functions: receiving, analyzing, and disseminating information related to suspicious financial activities. The FIU's main focus is to identify and investigate suspicious activities, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. The FIU also works with other organizations and agencies to develop effective and efficient financial crime prevention strategies. The FIU is tasked with developing an effective system for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating information related to suspicious financial activities. The information collected is then used to identify, investigate, and prosecute financial crimes.

The characteristic of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 recommendations is that they comprise global standards for countering money laundering, recognized by government bodies across the world. The FATF 40 recommendations provide a comprehensive framework of measures that countries should implement to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The recommendations are not mandatory, but are widely recognized and followed by countries across the globe. The recommendations cover a range of areas, including customer due diligence, record-keeping, suspicious activity reporting, and international cooperation.

Verified Answer: = A. Collect further customer reference data and determine what must be screened and at which frequency. and C. Deploy an independent risk-based test to ensure the screening on this customer is effective.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation: = When an existing customer changes its business scope and jurisdictions, banks need to manage sanctions compliance risk effectively. Here are the steps they should take:

1. Collect Further Customer Reference Data: Obtain updated information about the customer’s new business activities, locations, and counterparties. Understand the nature of their transactions and assess the associated risks. Determine what specific data elements need to be screened (e.g., names, addresses, beneficial owners) and establish the appropriate screening frequency.

2. Deploy an Independent Risk-Based Test: Conduct a comprehensive risk assessment tailored to the customer’s changes. This assessment should consider factors such as the customer’s industry, geographic exposure, and transaction volume. The risk assessment helps identify high-risk areas that require enhanced scrutiny.

3. Screen Directors and Ultimate Beneficial Owners: Perform sanctions screening not only on the customer but also on their directors and ultimate beneficial owners. This ensures that any potential risks associated with these individuals are identified and mitigated.

4. Perform Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and Negative Media Screenings: Continue to screen the customer and related parties against PEP lists and negative media sources. This helps detect any adverse information related to politically exposed individuals or entities.

By following these steps, banks can proactively manage sanctions compliance risk and safeguard their institution’s reputation while adhering to regulatory requirements12.

References:

1. Protiviti: Sanctions Risk Assessment: A Key Risk Management Tool

2. Moody’s: What Businesses Need to Know About Sanctions Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries that allows for the exchange of information and evidence in the investigation and enforcement of criminal laws. MLATs provide a framework for countries to assist each other with investigations, prosecutions, and other legal matters, including the exchange of information, evidence, documents, and testimony. MLATs are commonly used in investigations related to money laundering, terrorism, and other transnational crimes.

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

References:

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

2: Consequences of Money Laundering and Financial Crime2

3: Money laundering, its impact and consequences3

 According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1, the AML program should be reassessed periodically or when there are significant changes in the business environment, such as:

Expansion of business to new territories: This could expose the business to new risks, regulations, and customers that require different AML policies, procedures, and controls. The AML program should be updated to reflect the new jurisdictions and their AML requirements, as well as to conduct appropriate risk assessments and due diligence on the new markets and customers.

New product offering: This could introduce new vulnerabilities, opportunities, and challenges for the AML program. The AML program should be revised to incorporate the new product features, benefits, and risks, as well as to ensure compliance with any applicable AML rules and standards for the new product.

The other options are not factors that would necessarily lead to a reassessment of the current AML program, unless they have a material impact on the AML risks, objectives, or performance of the business:

Appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer: This could affect the AML program if the new CFO has a different vision, strategy, or approach to AML than the previous one, or if the new CFO has a significant role or responsibility in the AML program. However, the appointment of a new CFO alone does not trigger a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other changes or issues that warrant a review.

Change of company name: This could affect the AML program if the change of name reflects a change of ownership, structure, or nature of the business that could alter the AML risks, obligations, or expectations. However, the change of name alone does not necessitate a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other implications or consequences that affect the AML program.

Change of internal audit team members: This could affect the AML program if the new internal audit team members have different qualifications, skills, or experiences than the previous ones, or if the new internal audit team members have a different scope, methodology, or frequency of auditing the AML program. However, the change of internal audit team members alone does not require a reassessment of the AML program, unless there are other factors or findings that indicate a need for a review.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs

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

According to the CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods to launder money using TCSPs is to create a complex web of transactions involving multiple entities and jurisdictions, often using shell companies and nominees. The payment of consultancy fees to unrelated companies and service providers established in a foreign jurisdiction could be a sign of such a scheme, as it could be used to disguise the origin and destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes and regulations. Therefore, this transaction indicator warrants further escalation to the compliance officer.

References: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 69.

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

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

References:

Understanding Risk in Correspondent Banking

GUIDANCE ON CORRESPONDENT BANKING SERVICES

Correspondent Bank: Definition and How It Works

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

Financial institutions (FIs) are required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in their investigations of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. However, sometimes LEAs may submit requests for information or documents that are overly broad, unduly intrusive, or unreasonable in scope or volume. Such requests may pose challenges or risks for FIs, such as violating customer privacy, compromising data security, disrupting business operations, or incurring excessive costs.

The most appropriate response for an FI in such a situation is to narrow the request through a prompt response to the LEA. This means that the FI should communicate with the LEA as soon as possible to clarify the purpose, scope, and relevance of the request, and to negotiate a more reasonable and proportionate request that meets the LEA’s needs and the FI’s capabilities. The FI should also explain the potential difficulties or consequences of complying with the original request, and propose alternative or additional sources of information that may be more useful or accessible. The FI should document the communication and the agreed terms of the request, and comply with the request in a timely and accurate manner.

By narrowing the request through a prompt response, the FI can demonstrate its good faith and willingness to cooperate with the LEA, while also protecting its own interests and obligations. This can help avoid or resolve any conflicts or misunderstandings between the FI and the LEA, and facilitate a more efficient and effective investigation.

References:

Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts

EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT BY AML/CFT SUPERVISORS OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

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

Support of Law Enforcement

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide 6th Edition

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

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

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

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

D. Large Cash Deposit Followed by ATM Withdrawals:

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

E. Inconsistent Cash Transactions:

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

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

A country that does not have strong predicate offenses and is lax in prosecuting AML cases could suffer increased organized crime and corruption as a social/economic consequence. "Weaknesses in the AML/CFT regime can lead to a range of economic and social consequences, including...increased crime and corruption." (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 32)

 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.

References:

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.3, page 14

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.4, page 15

IT expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes. The first EU Directive on Money Laundering, adopted in 1990, was the first major international agreement to combat money laundering. It expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes and established drug trafficking as a predicate offense of money laundering. The Directive also extended the scope of money laundering beyond drug-related crimes, making it applicable to all serious crimes. This was a major step forward in the fight against money laundering, as it made it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute money laundering cases.

Senior management bears the ultimate responsibility for approving a financial institution's relationship with a politically exposed person (PEP). The institution must ensure that appropriate measures are taken to manage the risks associated with a PEP, including conducting enhanced due diligence and applying appropriate mitigating measures. The relationship manager and the OKYC analyst may identify the risks associated with the PEP and recommend mitigating measures, but it is ultimately the responsibility of senior management to approve the relationship and ensure that the appropriate measures are taken. The enhanced due diligence compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that all due diligence requirements are met.

Conducting anonymous transactions is the most likely activity to facilitate money laundering through online banking systems with inadequate controls. Anonymous transactions allow money launderers to hide their identity, source and destination of funds, and the purpose of their transactions from the authorities and the financial institutions. Online banking systems that do not have proper KYC, customer due diligence, and transaction monitoring controls are vulnerable to being exploited by money launderers who can use various techniques, such as encryption, proxy servers, virtual currencies, prepaid cards, and online gambling, to conduct anonymous transactions123.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 40-41, 43-44

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.4, Money Laundering Using New Payment Methods

1, Fighting money laundering in the age of online banking, virtual currencies and internet gambling | ERA Forum

2, Financial crime risk management in digital payments | McKinsey

3, The Relationship Between Digital Banking and Financial Crime

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

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

Making payments via a company located in a jurisdiction that is known to have lax anti-money laundering controls is a sign of suspicious activity and should be reported. When making a payment of this nature, the insurance company should be aware of the client's source of funds and the possible risks associated with the transaction.

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

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

Export and import restrictions are sanctions imposed by countries to limit or prevent the import or export of certain goods and services. Export and import restrictions are typically used in order to protect a country's economic or political interests, or to prevent the proliferation of weapons or other dangerous materials. Export and import restrictions are often the first type of sanctions used in order to avoid escalating violent conflicts and/or proliferation of weapons. Examples of export and import restrictions include embargoes, quotas, or tariffs.

The product type that is subject to US extra jurisdictional reach over non-US banks and non-US persons under the USA PATRIOT Act is Correspondent Banking. According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide, "The USA PATRIOT Act extends the reach of the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes to non-U.S. banks and non-U.S. persons. This extra jurisdictional reach includes, but is not limited to, correspondent banking."

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.

Retail banks typically have a high inherent risk of money laundering due to their provision of cash services. This is because cash is a preferred medium of exchange for criminals and terrorists, and retail banks provide a convenient way for them to move large sums of money without detection. Retail banks are also vulnerable to money laundering through the use of false identities and other deceptive practices. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 8).

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

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

An enterprise-wide compliance culture is a centralized, coordinated approach to ethics and compliance program design and assessment that cuts across multiple business units within an organization1. One key aspect of promoting such a culture is that the relevant information should be shared throughout the organization, so that all employees are aware of the compliance risks, policies, procedures, and expectations, and can act accordingly2. Sharing information also facilitates collaboration, communication, and feedback among different functions and levels of the organization, and helps identify and address any gaps or issues in the compliance program3. By contrast, the other options are not conducive to an enterprise-wide compliance culture, as they either create silos, conflicts, or inefficiencies in the compliance function.

References:

1: Enterprise Compliance Risk Management Services | Deloitte US

2: Enterprise Risk Management and Risk Culture - McKinsey & Company

3: FRB: Speech, Bies–Enterprise-wide Compliance Programs–February 4, 2004

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

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

References:

Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

1: FATF Guidance on Private Sector Information Sharing1

2: Mitigating the risks of terrorist financing | Crowe LLP3

3: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination3

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

References:

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

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

Tracing terrorist finances, INTERPOL

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

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

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

References:

1: Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services, FATF, 2016

According to the Wolfsberg Group, a correspondent bank should evaluate the distribution of downstream correspondents and identify any direct or indirect issues when it permits “nested” relationships, which are arrangements where a respondent bank provides correspondent banking services to other banks that are not customers of the correspondent bank. This step is important to understand the types of financial institutions to whom the services are being offered and the potential risks they pose. The correspondent bank should also obtain information on the nature and extent of the nested activity, the due diligence performed by the respondent bank on the nested banks, and the controls and monitoring in place to prevent financial crime.

References:

Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 20221, Section 4.5: Nested Relationships

Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services2, Section 3.2.2: Nested Correspondent Banking Relationships

One of the key components of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is customer due diligence (CDD), which involves verifying the identity of the customer, understanding the nature and purpose of the customer’s relationship with the financial institution (FI), and assessing the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing that the customer poses. CDD is essential for preventing and detecting the misuse of the FI’s services by criminals, and for complying with the relevant laws and regulations.

However, CDD can be challenging for FIs that offer online services to customers, as there is a greater difficulty in matching the customer with the provided identification documentation. Unlike face-to-face interactions, online services rely on electronic or remote methods of identification and verification, such as scanned copies of documents, biometric data, digital signatures, or third-party verification services. These methods may not be as reliable or secure as physical verification, and may expose the FI to the risk of identity fraud, document forgery, or impersonation. Moreover, online services may attract customers from different jurisdictions, which may have different standards and requirements for identification and verification, and may pose different levels of risk.

Therefore, FIs that offer online services to customers should implement enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures to mitigate the risk of money laundering, such as obtaining additional information or documentation from the customer, applying more stringent verification procedures, conducting more frequent and intensive monitoring of the customer’s transactions and behavior, and restricting or limiting the types or amounts of transactions that the customer can perform online.

References:

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4, page 82

Anti-Money Laundering in a Nutshell, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 63

Guidance on Digital Identity, Section 2, page 8

Anti-Money Laundering, The Basics: Installment 1, Section 3.2, page 5