AML Certification CAMS Passing Score

The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend a financial institution to investigate the source of funds, identify people and companies that are clearly related, and identify a person fully, including their political history, when dealing with individuals holding important public positions. These are essential steps to conduct enhanced due diligence based on public information, as they can help to assess the risk profile, the legitimacy, and the transparency of the customer relationship. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s list of public officials is not a reliable source of public information, as it is not comprehensive, updated, or verified. Therefore, it is not a sufficient criterion to check the background of potential customers.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Sixth Edition manual, the AML compliance officer should inform senior leadership and the board of the investigation (page 124) and monitor the progress of the investigation by keeping clear records (page 127). Additionally, the AML compliance officer should provide all information to the FIU as soon as possible to avoid delays (page 126).

According to the CAMS Manual, when a financial institution is being investigated by the financial intelligence unit (FIU), the AML compliance officer should inform senior leadership and the board of the investigation and monitor the progress of the investigation by keeping clear records. The manual states:

"The AML compliance officer should inform senior leadership and the board of any investigations and then monitor the progress of the investigation by keeping clear records of what has been requested and submitted, deadlines and extensions granted, and any findings or reports received. This will allow the financial institution to respond effectively and efficiently to the investigation and take appropriate action if necessary." (CAMS Manual, Section 7.4.1 - Financial Intelligence Units, p. 366)

According to the CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods to launder money using TCSPs is to create a complex web of transactions involving multiple entities and jurisdictions, often using shell companies and nominees. The payment of consultancy fees to unrelated companies and service providers established in a foreign jurisdiction could be a sign of such a scheme, as it could be used to disguise the origin and destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes and regulations. Therefore, this transaction indicator warrants further escalation to the compliance officer.

The most suspicious transaction indicators related to casino activities are:

A client requests a winnings check (cheque) in a third party’s name. This could indicate an attempt to conceal the source or ownership of the funds, or to evade reporting requirements.

Acquaintances bet against each other in even-money games and it appears they are intentionally losing to one of the parties. This could indicate a scheme to launder money through the casino by transferring funds from one party to another without attracting attention.

A client requests the transfer of winnings to the bank account of a third party in a country without an effective anti-money laundering regime. This could indicate an attempt to move funds to a high-risk jurisdiction or to a person or entity that is involved in illicit activities.

The option that is not suspicious is:

A new client who is a large volume player asks the casino operator about the ability to transfer the funds to other locations in the same country. This could be a legitimate inquiry from a high-net-worth individual who travels frequently and wants to access their funds conveniently.