CAMS-FCI Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations Questions and Answers

The correct answer is A because the expected account activities were 1 to 5 transactions per year and around 1 million per transaction amount, but the actual activity showed much more frequent and varied transactions in different currencies and amounts. This indicates a deviation from the customer’s profile and risk level.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 16

Money laundering through online marketplaces and trade-based money laundering both involve the manipulation of the value or quantity of goods to disguise the illicit origin of funds. Over-valuation of the stated price of goods and no evidence of delivery of goods or shipping expenses are two common indicators of such schemes. The other options are not specific to these methods of money laundering.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 29-30.

One of the actions that is part of the enhanced due diligence process is collecting beneficial ownership details regarding the client’s account. This is important to identify the natural persons who ultimately own or control the client, and to assess the potential risks associated with them. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), beneficial ownership information should include1:

• The name, nationality, and country of residence of each beneficial owner.
• The date of birth or incorporation of each beneficial owner.
• The nature and extent of the beneficial interest held by each beneficial owner.
• The means by which the beneficial ownership or control is exercised.

References:

FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership

As part of an internal fraud investigation, an AML officer should gather information on the employee from coworkers and supervisors before the interview, as this can help to establish a baseline of the employee’s behavior, role, and responsibilities, and identify any red flags or anomalies. The other options are not consistent with best practices because they can compromise the integrity of the investigation, violate the employee’s rights, or discourage cooperation.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 28.

The best reason for an investigator to continue an investigation is that the end-user is a military force. This is because supplying aviation parts to a military force may involve sanctions risk, export control risk, or human rights risk, depending on the nature and destination of the military force. The investigator should conduct further due diligence to determine if the customer is complying with the relevant laws and regulations, and if the bank is exposed to any reputational or legal risk by providing services to the customer.

References:

• Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …
• Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …
• Former airline employee and aircraft part sellers charged in kickback …

The investigator should document the investigation process and retain all relevant documents in the case management system. This is because documenting the investigation process is a good practice to ensure the quality and consistency of the investigation, as well as to facilitate the review and audit of the investigation. Retaining all relevant documents is also important to support the evidence and findings of the investigation, as well as to comply with the record-keeping requirements of the relevant authorities. The other options are incorrect because:

• A. Excluding any open-source information from record-keeping is not advisable, as open-source information can provide valuable insights and context for the investigation, and may not be easily retrievable in the future.
• B. Adding all of the information the FI has about the subject, their account(s) activity, research results, KYC information, etc. to the SAR/STR is not necessary, as the SAR/STR should only contain the essential information that is relevant and material to the suspicious activity. Adding too much information may obscure the main points and make the SAR/STR less effective.
• D. Not documenting the investigation process if a SAR/STR is not filed is not acceptable, as the investigation process should be documented regardless of the outcome. Documenting the investigation process can help justify why a SAR/STR was not filed, and also provide a reference for future investigations involving the same subject or activity.

References:

• Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS, Section 3: Reporting Suspicious Activity, page 14
• Leading Complex Investigations Certificate | ACAMS, Module 4: Documenting Your Investigation, page 4

The investigator should recommend a SAR/STR be filed regarding the second client’s use of a questionable trust to open an account, as this could indicate an attempt to conceal the source and ownership of funds, and to evade taxes and sanctions. The investigator should also monitor all accounts and entities related to the second client, as they may be involved in illegal activities or pose a high risk to the FI. The investigator should not review all accounts that have opened trust accounts, as this would be too broad and inefficient. The investigator should not inform FI management of deficiencies in their AML program, as this is not their role or responsibility. The investigator should not inform FI management of the start of a serious risk-based investigation, as this may compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the investigation.

The most likely reason for conducting a reverse transaction is to conceal or launder illicit funds. A reverse transaction is a transaction that reverses a previous transaction, such as a refund, a chargeback, or a cancellation. Reverse transactions can be used by money launderers to obscure the source, ownership, or destination of funds, or to create false records or invoices. For example, a money launderer may initiate a wire transfer from a high-risk jurisdiction to a low-risk jurisdiction, and then reverse the transaction after receiving confirmation of the funds. This way, the money launderer can create a paper trail that shows legitimate funds coming from a low-risk jurisdiction, while hiding the true origin of the funds.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 40-41.

Financial institutions should perform the following actions to ensure proper data governance:

Establish an appropriate data management method for collecting and storing information. This is important to ensure that the data is consistent, reliable, and accessible for various purposes, such as risk assessment, compliance reporting, and customer service. Data management methods may include defining data standards, policies, and procedures; implementing data quality controls and validation checks; and using appropriate data storage systems and formats.

Ensure the accuracy of customer identification records and transaction records and appropriately manage data as a prerequisite for the effective use of IT systems. This is important to comply with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) requirements, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting. Accurate and complete customer and transaction data also enables financial institutions to use IT systems more effectively for data analysis, risk management, and decision making.

Periodically validate integrity and accuracy of information used for IT systems such as customer information, customer identification records, and transaction records. This is important to ensure that the data remains up-to-date, relevant, and reliable over time. Data validation may include verifying the source and quality of the data; identifying and correcting any errors or inconsistencies; and updating or deleting any obsolete or redundant data.

References:

• Data Governance for Financial Institutions - Capgemini
• Small and Medium-Sized Deposit-Taking Institutions (SMSBs) Capital and Liquidity Requirements - OSFI

The data points that the compliance team should include in its data analytics program to detect shell or front company red flags are entities whose principal place of business is a non-residential address and entities transacting with or having relation to tax haven or high-risk countries. These data points may indicate that the entities are not conducting legitimate business activities, but rather are used to conceal the identity or location of the true beneficiaries or owners, or to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, or other illicit activities. Some of the sources that support these data points as red flags are4567:

• Entities whose principal place of business is a non-residential address may indicate that they have no physical presence, operations, assets, or employees. They may use addresses such as post office boxes, mail forwarding services, registered agents, or virtual offices to avoid detection or scrutiny.
• Entities transacting with or having relation to tax haven or high-risk countries may indicate that they are involved in offshore financial activities that are designed to evade taxes, regulations, or sanctions. They may also be exposed to higher risks of money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, or fraud.

References:

• How to Identify a Shell Company and the Associated Red Flags
• Difference between Shell, Shelf & Front Company | Sigma Ratings
• Shell Companies and Money Laundering | ComplyAdvantage
• General Comments Incorporation of shell companies - Singapore Police Force

Some of the negative impacts of illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes are loss of potential tax proceeds and threats to biodiversity. Loss of potential tax proceeds occurs when illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes evade taxation and customs duties, depriving governments of revenues that could be used for public services and development. Threats to biodiversity occur when illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes endanger species, habitats, and ecosystems, reducing their resilience and ability to provide essential services for human well-being. Public health consequences and threats to a country’s political stability are not directly related to illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes, but rather to other types of financial crimes such as money laundering, terrorism financing, or corruption.

References: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 68-69; [FATF Report on Money Laundering from Environmental Crime], page 9-10.

The best information to share at the very beginning of a well-written SAR/STR narrative is the purpose of the SAR/STR narrative and a general description of the known or alleged violation. This is because this information provides an overview of why the SAR/STR is being filed and what type of suspicious activity or transaction is involved. It also helps to capture the attention of the reader and set the tone for the rest of the narrative.

References: Reporting Suspicious Activity Certificate, Module 4, page 7.

The correct answer is A and C because these indicators suggest that the customer is using fraudulent documents and misrepresenting the goods to conceal the illicit nature of the transactions. Fentanyl traffickers often use front companies and falsified invoices to disguise their shipments as legitimate products, such as medical supplies or chemicals. Reviewing the invoices and transportation documents, as well as the FDA product certifications, can help to identify discrepancies or anomalies that indicate fraud or deception.

References: Fentanyl and Fentanyl Analogues: Federal Trends and Trafficking Patterns, page 18; Fentanyl Trafficking Offenses, page 2.

The Fl should review the corporate account’s activity and transactions. This is because a grand jury subpoena is a legal request for information or testimony that may be used in a criminal investigation or prosecution. The Fl should review the account for any suspicious or unusual activity that may be related to the subpoena or indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes. The Fl should also document its review and retain any relevant records.

References: Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 3, page 14.

"The FATF measures the effectiveness of a country's efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing through a mutual evaluation process. During a mutual evaluation, the FATF assesses a country's legal and institutional framework, its implementation of measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and the effectiveness of its efforts. The FATF then issues a report with recommendations for improvement" [CAMS Study Guide 6th edition, page 15-16].

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

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

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

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

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

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from insider trading, which is a form of market abuse and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions. The fact that the originator was indicted by U.S. law enforcement, arrested in Switzerland, and extradited for alleged insider trading indicates that there is a strong suspicion that the funds are derived from criminal activity. The other options are not sufficient reasons to file a SAR/STR, as they do not directly relate to the nature or source of the funds.

References: [Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks and Vulnerabilities Associated with Gold], page 17 : [Leading Complex Investigations Certificate], page 12

Weaker cybersecurity controls are a main vulnerability that has led to an increase in ransomware attacks on small businesses, as they make them easier targets for cybercriminals who can exploit their systems and demand payment for restoring access to their data. The other options are not relevant to the vulnerability, as they relate to the consequences or responses of the victims.

The actions that the investigator should recommend to mitigate risk are conducting enhanced due diligence (D) and re-evaluating the customer risk profile (E). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to obtain more information and evidence about the nature and purpose of the transactions, the source and destination of the funds, and the identity and legitimacy of the parties involved. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries” (p. 24). The FI should also “re-assess the customer risk profile based on any new information obtained during the investigation, and adjust the customer due diligence and monitoring requirements accordingly” (p. 25).

The other options are not as appropriate or effective as options D and E. The investigator should not recommend exiting the relationship with the customer (A), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not recommend documenting and maintaining a file with the investigative findings (B), as this is not an action to mitigate risk, but rather a standard procedure for any investigation. The investigator should not recommend discussing the investigation findings with the customer ©, as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the FI to legal or regulatory risks.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide

The fact that should not be included in the SAR/STR narrative is the request by law enforcement (D). This is because the request by law enforcement is confidential and should not be disclosed to the customer or anyone else who is not authorized to know it. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should not include any reference to the LE request in the SAR/STR narrative, as this could compromise the LE investigation or alert the customer of the suspicion” (p. 35). The FI should also not inform the customer of the LE request or delay filing the SAR/STR because of it.

The other facts should be included in the SAR/STR narrative, as they are relevant and indicative of human trafficking money laundering. The air travel and hotel expenses (A) show that the customer is involved in moving people across different locations, which could be a sign of human smuggling or trafficking. The time of the cash deposits (B) shows that the customer is receiving cash payments during unusual hours, which could be a sign of illicit activities or services. The sporting event © shows that the customer is exploiting a high-demand situation for their business, which could be a sign of opportunistic or organized crime.

The investigator should take the following investigative actions concerning the 100,000 USD wire transfer:

• Review the wire transfer protocols for this customer. This will help the investigator to determine if the wire transfer is consistent with the customer’s normal business activity and risk profile, or if it deviates from the established patterns or thresholds.
• Review regulations applicable to foreign currency trading transactions. This will help the investigator to assess if the wire transfer violates any laws or regulations related to currency exchange, such as reporting requirements, licensing requirements, or sanctions compliance.
• Locate and review licenses, registrations, and account operating agreements associated with the MTB account. This will help the investigator to verify if the MTB has the necessary authorization and documentation to conduct currency exchange transactions and if it has disclosed this activity to the FI. References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, pages 32-33.

The observations at the on-site visits that would justify writing a SAR/STR are signs of severe wear and poor maintenance at the site (A), lights turned off at the site during operational hours ©, and a full parking lot of cars with no staff at the site (F). These observations suggest that the daycare businesses are not operating legitimately or providing adequate services to their customers, and that they may be misusing governmental grants or laundering money through their accounts. These observations are consistent with some of the red flags for fraud identified by ACAMS2, such as:

• Inadequate facilities or equipment for the type of business
• Lack of visible activity or customers at the business location
• Discrepancy between reported income and expenses
• Unusual volume or frequency of transactions

The other observations are not as relevant or indicative of fraud as options A, C, and F. A site located in a commercial building (B) could be a normal or legitimate choice for a daycare business, depending on its size, location, and availability. Visible attendance with children being dropped off by parents (D) could show that the daycare business is providing genuine services to its customers, although it does not rule out possible fraud or money laundering. Visible signage indicating the purpose of building (E) could also show that the daycare business is transparent and legitimate, although it does not guarantee its quality or compliance.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS 2: ACAMS Fraud Prevention eLearning Course Module 3: Fraud Detection Techniques

The step that the investigator should take next is to flag the nephew as a PEP by association (D). This is because the nephew is related to a general who is a senior military official and a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners” (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR in relation to corruption involving the nephew and the general (A), as this could be premature or unnecessary, as there is no evidence of corruption or criminal activity between them. The investigator should not determine whether there is a business relationship between the nephew and the general (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew and the general are customers of different banks and are not involved in the same transaction. The investigator should not seek senior management approval to continue the relationship with the nephew ©, as this could be premature or disproportionate, as there is no indication that the nephew poses a high risk or requires termination.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS

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

The correct answer is A and B because human smuggling/trafficking and terrorist financing are both predicate offenses for money laundering that could be related to the client’s activities. Option C is incorrect because there is no indication of narcotics trafficking in the scenario. Option D is incorrect because there is no indication of antiques smuggling in the scenario. Option E is incorrect because there is no indication of tax evasion in the scenario.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 10; Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate Certificate, Module 2.

The instruction that the person in charge of the broker-dealer should provide to their employees is to take notes on the questions and comments made by the agents (A). This is because taking notes can help the employees to recall and document what happened during the search warrant execution, which can be useful for legal or regulatory purposes. According to ACAMS3, “the FI should instruct its staff to cooperate with LE agents during a search warrant execution, but also to take notes of what is being searched, seized, or asked by the agents” (p. 35). The FI should also “keep copies of any documents or records that are taken by LE agents” (p. 35).

The other instructions are not correct. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to sign consent forms permitting the agents to search employees’ offices (B), as this is unnecessary and potentially risky, as the agents already have a valid search warrant that authorizes them to search the premises. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to provide agents with unlimited access to customers’ personal data ©, as this could violate privacy or data protection laws, as well as compromise customer trust and confidentiality. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to volunteer information not requested by the agents that they think may be useful (D), as this could interfere with the LE investigation or expose them to legal or regulatory risks.

References:

• Introduction to Transnational Organized Crime
• ACAMS Law Enforcement and Financial Crimes Investigations eLearning Course Module
• Law Enforcement Requests and Actions