CAMS Premium Exam Questions

"The first European Union Directive, “Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering (Directive 91/308/EEC),” was adopted by the Council of the European Communities in June 1991. Like all directives adopted by the Council, it required member states to achieve (by amending national law, if necessary) the specified results. This First Directive required the members to enact legislation to prevent their domestic financial systems from being used for money laundering"

According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a network of over 160 FIUs that promotes international cooperation and information exchange, FIUs should share information with foreign FIUs spontaneously, without prior request, when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information is relevant for the receiving FIU1. This principle is also reflected in the FATF Recommendation 40, which states that FIUs should exchange information with other FIUs, especially when this information concerns money laundering, predicate offences, or terrorist financing2. Spontaneous information sharing can enhance the effectiveness of FIUs, as it can help to identify new leads, trends, patterns, or typologies, as well as to prevent or disrupt criminal activities1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of FIU information sharing. For example:

In accordance with Wolfsberg guidelines, submit the information to the other FIU in written form. The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that issues guidance and standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. However, the Wolfsberg guidelines are not binding for FIUs, and they do not specify the format or channel of informationexchange between FIUs3. Moreover, submitting information in written form may not be the most efficient or secure way of communication, as it may cause delays, errors, or breaches of confidentiality.

Take no action until contacted by the other FIU. This option contradicts the principle of spontaneous information sharing, as it implies that the FIU with the relevant information will wait for a formal request from the other FIU, instead of proactively sharing the information. This may result in missed opportunities, inefficiencies, or failures in detecting or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

Request approval from the Egmont Group prior to sharing the information with the other FIU. This option is unnecessary and impractical, as the Egmont Group does not have the authority or the capacity to approve or deny individual information requests or exchanges between FIUs. The Egmont Group provides a platform and a framework for FIU cooperation, but it does not interfere with the operational autonomy or the bilateral relations of its members4.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, PEPs are individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state-owned corporations, or important political party officials1. PEPs pose a higher risk of money laundering and corruption due to their position and influence2. Therefore, financial institutions should apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures when dealing with PEPs as customers3. This includes:

Conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the businessrelationship to detect and report any suspicious transactions or activities4. This may involve more frequent reviews, higher-level approvals, or increased documentation of the transactions and the rationale behind them.

Taking adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the business relationship or occasional transaction. This may involve verifying the origin, legitimacy, and purpose of the funds, as well as the economic activities and assets of the PEP.

The other two options are incorrect because:

Expedite due diligence when a PEP is pre-approved by a member of senior management is not a recommended course of action, as it may compromise the quality and integrity of the due diligence process. Pre-approval by senior management does not exempt the financial institution from conducting thorough and timely due diligence on the PEP and the business relationship.

Obtain appropriate senior management approval for establishing a business relationship with a PEP from a high risk country is a necessary but not sufficient course of action, as it does not address the ongoing monitoring and source of funds aspects of the PEP risk management. Senior management approval is required for establishing or continuing a business relationship with a PEP, regardless of the country of origin or residence of the PEP.

 New business products should be evaluated for AML concerns before they are launched into the market. This is because new products may introduce new risks or vulnerabilities that could be exploited by money launderers or terrorist financiers. By conducting a pre-launch assessment, a financial institution can identify and mitigate these risks, design appropriate controls and procedures, and ensure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. A pre-launch assessment can also help a financial institutionto align its AML strategy with its business objectives, and avoid potential reputational damage or regulatory sanctions.