ACAMS CAMS-FCI Dumps

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.

Here is the exact information from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for Trust and Company Service Providers:

"Understanding the management and ownership structure of a trust is crucial in assessing the ML/TF risk it poses. This includes the identity of all settlors, trustees and beneficiaries, and their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as the nature and purpose of the trust."

"TCSPs should obtain and maintain up-to-date information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, the source of funds and wealth, and where relevant, the source of funds or wealth of the settlor and beneficiaries."

Based on this information, the correct answers are A and D. Trust and Company Service Providers must understand the responsibility and authority in the structure, as well as the general purpose behind the structure in order to assess the overall risk of the trust and ensure that any transactions with the trust are legitimate.

The correct answer is B because the FATF recommendations state that financial institutions should provide feedback to the FIU as quickly as possible, especially in cases involving the financing of terrorism that could imply an imminent threat to the country. Option A is incorrect because requesting an official court subpoena would delay the response and might not be necessary for the FIU to access the information. Option C is incorrect because establishing a committee would also delay the response and might not be in compliance with the FIU’s request. Option D is incorrect because informing the public relations department is irrelevant to the question and might compromise the confidentiality of the investigation.

References: FATF Recommendations, Recommendation 29; Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 4.

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.

When writing and submitting SARs/STRs, one should consider the guidelines issued by the national financial intelligence unit (FIU) and local regulator and incorporate any country-specific requirements. This ensures that the reports are compliant with the relevant laws and regulations and provide useful information to the authorities. The other options are either incorrect or not best practices.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 48-49.

An investigator should avoid escalating a suspicious event to the chief compliance officer if there is a potential conflict of interest, such as when a close family member of the officer is involved in the transaction. In such a case, the investigator should pursue other channels, such as reporting to a higher authority or an independent committee. The other options do not present a conflict of interest and should be escalated to the chief compliance officer as part of the normal procedure.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 18.

The OFAC sanctions screening audit program should include the requirement that all clients with foreign identification are subject to enhanced due diligence, as this provides an extra layer of protection against potential violations of OFAC sanctions.

The purchase of airplane tickets after receiving multiple small deposits from a crowdfunding platform might suggest that the funds are being used to facilitate travel for terrorist purposes. The other options are not necessarily indicative of terrorist financing, as they could be explained by legitimate reasons or other types of financial crimes.

The sources of funds that Bank A should conduct additional scrutiny on are the third-party transfer and the transfer from Bank B. This is because these sources may pose higher risks of money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, or other illicit activities. Some of the reasons why these sources require more scrutiny are23:

Third-party transfers may involve unknown or unrelated parties that may have ulterior motives or hidden agendas. They may also be used to obscure the origin or destination of funds, or to circumvent sanctions or other regulatory restrictions.

Transfers from Bank B may involve jurisdictions that have weak anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes, high levels of corruption, or significant criminal activity. They may also involve banks that have poor reputation, compliance, or transparency standards.

References:

• Third Party Payments - Wolfsberg Group
• Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services - FATF

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 statement that most accurately characterizes the methods used by transnational criminal organizations is that they routinely engage in many different types of criminal activities as long as they think it will benefit them ©. This is because transnational criminal organizations are flexible and adaptable, and they exploit opportunities and vulnerabilities in different markets and jurisdictions. According to ACAMS2, “Transnational criminal organizations are involved in a wide range of illicit activities, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms trafficking, money laundering, cybercrime, environmental crime, fraud, corruption, and terrorism” (p. 3). They also “operate across borders and regions, using complex networks and structures to evade detection and prosecution” (p. 3).

The other statements are not as accurate or comprehensive as option C. Transnational criminal organizations are unlikely to associate with known terrorist organizations due to the reputational risks (A) is false, as transnational criminal organizations may collaborate or cooperate with terrorist organizations for mutual benefit or convenience, such as sharing resources, routes, or contacts. Transnational criminal organizations are likely to specialize in one particular method and continue to refine that method to escape detection (B) is false, as transnational criminal organizations may diversify or change their methods depending on the circumstances or opportunities, such as shifting products, markets, or modus operandi. Transnational criminal organizations see each other as competitors and rarely cooperate (D) is false, as transnational criminal organizations may form alliances or partnerships with other criminal groups for strategic or tactical reasons, such as sharing information, expertise, or influence.

The correct answer is C because the FI is unable to obtain evidence of required licensing or registration despite suspicion of money transmitting, which is a red flag for money laundering and a violation of federal and state laws. Option A is incorrect because making several deposits in one month that appear to exceed their expected monthly income might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s profile and source of funds. Option B is incorrect because receiving a large, one-time wire from a law firm might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s relationship with the law firm and the purpose of the wire. Option D is incorrect because discovering a large number of securities transactions that appear to be related to day trading might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s investment strategy and risk tolerance.

References: Money transmitter - Wikipedia; The Quick Guide To Money Transmitter Licenses - Surety Bond Insider; Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate Certificate, Module 3.

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 best next steps for the investigator to take are:

A. Review the customer’s transaction history. This can help the investigator identify any patterns or anomalies in the customer’s account activity, such as changes in transaction volume, frequency, amount, source, destination, purpose, etc. The investigator can also compare the customer’s transaction history with their KYC profile and risk rating to assess if there are any discrepancies or inconsistencies.

C. Check internal KYC information. This can help the investigator verify the customer’s identity, business nature, ownership structure, expected activity, source of funds, etc. The investigator can also update or enhance the customer’s KYC information based on any new or relevant information obtained from other sources.

E Conduct adverse media and open-source searches on the customer’s background. This can help the investigator find out if there is any negative or adverse information about the customer in public data sources, such as news articles, social media posts, blogs, forums, etc. Adverse media and open-source searches can also provide additional context and insight into the customer’s reputation, behavior, associations, etc. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Request information from the internet service provider who hosts the website is not feasible, as it may require a legal process or a court order to obtain such information. Moreover, the internet service provider may not have or disclose any useful information about the website or its owner.

D. Research other customer accounts for transactions to the same website is not relevant, as it may not provide any meaningful information about the customer under investigation. Furthermore, it may violate the privacy and confidentiality of other customers who are not related to the investigation.

F. Identify if the customer has opened accounts in an urban city area is not helpful, as it may not have any bearing on the customer’s involvement in a drug or drug paraphernalia purchase. Additionally, it may not be possible to access or verify such information without the customer’s consent or authorization.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS, Section 2: Investigating Financial Crimes, page 11

Leading Complex Investigations Certificate | ACAMS, Module 3: Conducting Research and Analysis, page 6

Adverse Media Screening - Using AI to Mitigate Risk

Legal requirements for adverse media screening - Thomson Reuters

Electronic client due diligence | Ethics helpsheets | ICAEW

6AMLD & FATF: Where Adverse Media Screening Fits In

Free Adverse Media Check | NameScan

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 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 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

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from illegal wildlife trade, which is a serious financial crime and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions3. The fact that the incoming funds came from pet stores, breeders, and private individuals suggests that the import company may be involved in smuggling or trafficking endangered or protected animals or their parts4. The outgoing wires to Indonesia and Uganda, which are known source countries for wildlife trafficking, may indicate payments to suppliers or facilitators of this illicit activity.

References: 3: Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering from the Illegal Wildlife Trade, page 9 4: Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate, page 18 : [World Wildlife Crime Report], page 16

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 investigator should determine that a nephew of the general (Bank A’s customer) should be flagged as a senior PEP ©. This is because the nephew is related to a senior military official who is 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 determine that a nephew of the general should be treated well to avoid reputational damage to the bank (A), as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a high-net-worth individual (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew’s wealth does not affect his potential PEP status or risk level. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a trustworthy source (D), as this could be biased or inaccurate, as the nephew’s trustworthiness does not depend on his relation to the general or his involvement in the transaction.

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

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)

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

The most concerning trading pattern for a compliance officer when a new customer has been onboarded in a securities firm is the customer accumulating securities of a low volume counter in small increments on a weekly basis. This type of behavior could indicate that the customer is attempting to obscure their identity or the true purpose of their trading activity, which can be indicative of money laundering or other suspicious activity. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 170).

Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act allows financial institutions to share information with each other, under a safe harbor that offers protection from liability, in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist financing activities. The intended benefits of this information sharing include:

Participating financial institutions sharing information about suspicious activity by customers that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, if a customer is conducting transactions with multiple financial institutions that individually do not appear suspicious, but collectively indicate a pattern of money laundering or terrorist financing, the financial institutions can share this information and report it to the authorities.

Detecting money laundering and terrorist financing approaches and schemes across multiple financial institutions. For example, if a financial institution identifies a new typology or modus operandi of money laundering or terrorist financing, it can share this information with other financial institutions to help them prevent or detect similar activities by their customers.

Obtaining additional information on customers or transactions regarding potential money laundering or terrorist financing. For example, if a financial institution has incomplete or insufficient information on a customer or a transaction that raises suspicion, it can request more information from another financial institution that may have dealt with the same customer or transaction.

References:

• Section 314(b) | FinCEN.gov
• Section 314(b) Fact Sheet - FinCEN.gov

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 analyst should clarify discrepancies noted in the customer’s declared profile given the downstream impact on the risk assessment. This is because discrepancies between the customer’s nature of business and the information on the business registry may indicate that the customer is not operating a legitimate business or is trying to conceal its true activities. The analyst should verify the customer’s identity, source of funds, and purpose of transactions to ensure that the customer’s risk profile is accurate and consistent with the Fl’s risk appetite.

References: Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 2, page 9.

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

The correct answer is C. Escalate to the compliance officer/money laundering reporting officer to file a SAR/STR. This is because the financial crime investigator has found evidence of fraudulent documents and false information, which indicate a high risk of money laundering or other financial crimes. The investigator should not contact the client directly, as this may tip them off or compromise the investigation. The investigator should also not report collusion between the cryptocurrency exchange and internal staff, as this is an assumption that has not been verified. The investigator should not request a CDD refresh, as this is not sufficient to address the serious issues identified.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 291

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 311

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 331

1:

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.

The correct answer is A because this scenario describes a possible case of ticket laundering, which is a form of money laundering where criminals use gambling tickets to disguise the source of their illicit funds. The customers who deposit the tickets are either complicit or unaware of the scheme, and they receive a commission or a fee for their service. The other options are not likely because they do not explain why the customers would deposit multiple tickets from the same gambling company and withdraw cash the next day.

References: : Ticket Laundering: A Money Laundering Method