Changed CAMS Exam Questions

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, the ultimate responsibility for an institution’s anti-money laundering program rests with the institution’s board of directors. The board of directors is responsible for creating a culture of compliance, approving the AML policies and procedures, appointing the AML compliance officer, overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the AML program, and ensuring adequate resources and training are provided to the staff. The board of directors is also accountable for any deficiencies or violations of the AML program and must take corrective actions when necessary.

The USA PATRIOT Act imposes several requirements on U.S. financial institutions when dealing with foreign financial institutions, especially those that pose a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Two of these requirements are:

Performing enhanced due diligence on shell banks: A shell bank is a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts are not being used by shell banks indirectly12.

Performing due diligence on correspondent accounts: A correspondent account is an account established by a financial institution to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of, or handle other financial transactions for a foreign financial institution. The USA PATRIOT Act requires U.S. financial institutions to collect and verify certain information about the foreign financial institution, such as its ownership, licensing, and anti-money laundering policies, and to assess the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing associated with the correspondent account13.

According to the guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the federal banking agencies, a financial institution is legally permitted to discuss any aspects of the reported activity with the law enforcement officer who contacts them about the suspicious transaction report (SAR), as long as the officer provides appropriate credentials and a written request for the information. The financialinstitution is also legally permitted to send the deposit documents referenced in the SAR, as they are part of the supporting documentation that may be requested by law enforcement1

However, the financial institution is not legally permitted to provide copies of the customer’s loan documents or explain the customer’s loan payment history, as they are not directly related to the reported activity and may contain confidential information that is protected by privacy laws or contractual agreements. The financial institution should only disclose the minimum amount of information necessary to respond to the law enforcement request and should not volunteer any information that is not relevant or requested12

 The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation that should cause an anti-money laundering specialist the most concern is B: Financial institutions should not keep anonymous accounts. This is because anonymous accounts are accounts that are opened or maintained without verifying the identity of the customer or the beneficial owner, or with fictitious or incomplete information. Anonymous accounts pose a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the origin, destination, and purpose of illicit funds, and to evade the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions. Therefore, the FATF Recommendation 10 requires financialinstitutions to identify and verify the identity of their customers and the beneficial owners, and to prohibit the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts or accounts in obviously fictitious names1.

The other options are also FATF Recommendations, but they are less relevant or applicable to the scenario. Option A: Financial institutions should not warn their customers when information relating to them is being reported to the competent authorities, is the FATF Recommendation 21, which aims to prevent tipping-off, i.e., alerting the customer that they are being investigated or reported for money laundering or terrorist financing. However, this does not directly address the issue of identity verification or anonymous accounts2. Option C: Financial institutions should maintain all necessary suspicious transaction report records on transactions, both domestic and international, for at least 5 years, is the FATF Recommendation 11, which aims to ensure that financial institutions have adequate and consistent records of their customers and transactions, and that these records are available to the competent authorities when needed. However, this does not prevent the opening or maintaining of anonymous accounts in the first place3. Option D: If financial institutions suspect that funds stem from criminal activity,they should be required to close the account, is not a FATF Recommendation, but rather a possible action that financial institutions may take in accordance with their risk assessment and policies. However, the FATF does not mandate or recommend the closure of accounts as a general rule, and advises that financial institutions should consult with the competent authorities before taking such action, as it may alert the customer or compromise the investigation4.