AML Certification Changed CAMS Questions

it describes a reason why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, which is names of the settlor and beneficiaries are not publicly available. This means that the true owners and controllers of the funds or assets held by the trust are hidden from the public and the authorities, and can only be accessed by the trustee or the protector, who may be complicit or unaware of the money laundering scheme. This creates a high level of anonymity and secrecy for the money launderers, who can use the trust to move, disguise, or conceal the origin and destination of their illicit funds.

The other options are not necessarily reasons why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, although they may have some advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option B describes a possible motive for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is to minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C describes a possible challenge or obstacle for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is offshore jurisdictions are unfamiliar with trust, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be other legal or financial vehicles available in those jurisdictions. Option D describes a possible characteristic or feature of a trust, which is trusts may hold assets of significant size, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be valid reasons or sources for the large assets.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pages 86-87

The most important consideration when deciding whether to recommend closing the account is the requests from the competent authority, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the regulator, or the law enforcement. According to the FAQs related to Suspicious Transaction Reporting issued by the Financial Monitoring Unit of Pakistan1, reporting entities should not terminate the relationship with the customer after filing a STR, unless instructed by the competent authority. This is because closing the account may alert the customer of the STR, compromise the investigation, or hinder the collection of further evidence. Therefore, the reporting entity should consult with the competent authority before taking any action to close the account.

The other options are less important or irrelevant considerations. The institution’s anti-money laundering policy may provide some guidance on how to handle high-risk customers or accounts, but it should not override the requests from the competent authority. Customer relations and the Chief Executive’s reputational risk are not valid reasons to keep the account open if there is evidence of money laundering or terrorist financing. The reporting entity should act in accordance with the law and the best interests of the public, not the personal or business interests of the customer or the bank’s management.

References:

1: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to Suspicious Transaction Reporting, 5

Reviewing parameter settings based on the latest risk assessment should be included in the evaluation of system settings for anti-money laundering alert surveillance. This is because parameter settings determine the thresholds and criteria for generating alerts based on the risk profile of the customers, products, services, channels, and jurisdictions involved in the transactions. A risk assessment is a periodic and comprehensive analysis of the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks faced by an organization, and it should inform the design and implementation of an effective anti-money laundering program, including the alert surveillance system. By aligning the parameter settings with the risk assessment, an organization can ensure that the system is capturing the most relevant and high-risk transactions, and reducing the number of false positives or irrelevant alerts.

References:

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 37-38.

Implementing AML Transaction Monitoring Systems: Critical Considerations, page 2-3.

3 techniques to improve AML transaction monitoring strategies, page 2.

 If an employee of a financial institution is found to have assisted in money laundering or any other criminal activity, the institution should take appropriate disciplinary action and report the employee to the relevant authorities. This is not only a legal obligation, but also a sound compliance practice to protect the institution’s reputation and integrity. Disciplining the employee without informing the authorities would be insufficient and potentially expose the institution to further legal risks. Ignoring the employee’s involvement or requiring additional training for all employees would be ineffective and inappropriate responses.

References:

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 121-1221

ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 6: AML Compliance Program, pp. 143-1441

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Lesson 5.2: International Standards and Best Practices2

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 6: AML Compliance Program, Lesson 6.4: Internal Controls2