ACAMS CAMS-FCI Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

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

The FI is required to ensure that the request includes an end date © when it receives a keep open letter from LE for the identified account. This is because the FI has to balance its legal obligations to cooperate with LE and to protect its customers’ privacy and rights. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should request a written confirmation from LE that includes a specific end date for the request, as well as a point of contact for any questions or concerns” (p. 35). The FI should also document the request and its compliance with it, and continue to monitor the account for any suspicious activity.

The other options are not correct. The FI should not contact the client for information relating to the account (A), as this could compromise the LE investigation or alert the client of the suspicion. The FI should not stop filing SAR/STR reports on the account and/or customer (B), as this could violate its regulatory obligations and expose it to legal risks. The FI should not notify LE immediately after new transactions (D), as this could also interfere with the LE investigation or tip off the client. The FI should follow the instructions of LE regarding when and how to share information.

The investigator should proceed in this situation by conducting the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP (A) and sending a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date (D). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to continue their analysis of the suspicious activity without being biased by the potential PEP status of the customer’s relative, and they ensure that the FI has accurate and current information about its customers and their associates. 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 “update the customer profile with any new information obtained during the investigation” (p. 25).

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not refer the newly identified customer’s account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP (B), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP (E), as this could also be premature or unnecessary, as well as potentially misleading or inaccurate. The investigator should not use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process ©, as this could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or their relative of the suspicion.

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