CAMS-FCI Exam Dumps : Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations

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 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

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.