ACAMS CAMS Based on Real Exam Environment

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.

 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, ordirectors 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 territorythat 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.

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.

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 4, page 851, bearer shares are shares that do not have the name of the owner registered on them, and the ownership is transferred by the physical delivery of the share certificate. This means that the true beneficial owner of the company can be hidden or changed without any record or notification. Bearer shares are considered a high-risk factor for money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can facilitate the movement and concealment of illicit funds through anonymous corporate vehicles. Therefore, the company having bearer shares should cause the most suspicion of money laundering among the options given.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may have some risk implications depending on the context and the customer profile. Option A, the jurisdiction being a known tax haven, may suggest that the company is seeking to avoid or minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C, the corporation director being a European citizen, may indicate that the company has some cross-border or international activities, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be valid business or personal reasons for the director’s nationality. Option D, no financial statements being filed for 3 years, maysuggest that the company is not complying with the accounting or reporting standards of the jurisdiction, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be other explanations or mitigating factors for the lack of financial statements.