Legit CAMS Exam Download

Undermining the Legitimate Private Sector: One of the most serious microeconomic effects of money laundering is felt in the private sector. Money launderers are known to use front companies: businesses that appear legitimate and engage in legitimate business but are in fact controlled by criminals who commingle the proceeds of illicit activity with legitimate funds to hide the ill-gotten gains. These front companies have a competitive advantage over legitimate firms as they have access to substantial illicit funds, allowing them to subsidize products and services sold at below market rates. This makes it difficult for legitimate businesses to compete against front companies. Clearly, the management principles of these criminal enterprises are not consistent with traditional free market principles, which results in further negative macroeconomic effects

The clients are not willing to have their names provided to the bank is a red flag that should stop the agent from discussing this potential purchase further, as this could indicate that the clients are trying to evade customer due diligence (CDD) or know your customer (KYC) requirements, or hide their beneficial ownership or source of funds. According to the U.K. Money Laundering Regulations 2017, real estate agents must conduct CDD on their customers and any beneficial owners, and verify their identity and address1. The U.K. also has a register of people with significant control (PSC) over companies, which requires companies to disclose their beneficial owners2. The use of private companies and wire transfers could also be a sign of layering, a money laundering technique that involves moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to obscure their origin3.

1: U.K. Government, Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Part 2: Customer Due Diligence, Section 5-6 2: U.K. Government, People with significant control (PSC) register, Overview 3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Page 19

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, simplified customer due diligence (CDD) or reduced measures could be acceptable for certain types of products or transactions that have a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, based on a reasonable assessment of the risk by countries or by financial institutions. These include:

Life insurance policies where the annual premium is no more than USD/EUR 1,000 or a single premium of no more than USD/EUR 2,500. This is because the amount of money involved is relatively small and the payout is usually contingent on a specific event, such as death or disability, which reduces the likelihood of abuse by criminals.

Insurance policies for pension schemes if there is no surrender clause and the policy cannot be used as collateral. This is because the beneficiaries of these policies are usually predetermined and the funds are locked in until retirement age, which limits the possibility of transferring or withdrawing the money for illicit purposes.

A pension, superannuation or similar scheme that provides retirement benefits to employees, where contributions are made by way of deduction from wages and the scheme rules do not permit the assignment of a member’s interest under the scheme. This is because the source of funds is known and verified by the employer and the scheme is regulated and supervised by competent authorities, which reduces the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

The other option, trusts where the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries are identified and the shares are in bearer form, is not eligible for simplified CDD or reduced measures, because the use of bearer shares poses a high risk of anonymity and concealment of beneficial ownership, which could facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing.

FATF 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 10 and Interpretive Note to Recommendation 10, paragraphs 17-18.

Screening customers at onboarding and quarterly thereafter is not sufficient to ensure compliance with economic sanctions, as sanctions lists may change frequently and the financial institution may not be aware of the latest updates. Screening should occur promptly after list updates to ensure that the financial institution is not dealing with a sanctioned individual or entity, or facilitating a prohibited transaction. This is recommended by the international guidance from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Wolfsberg Group12. Screening and performing enhanced due diligence on new relationships is also important, but not the only step to ensure compliance.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Sanctions, page 86

The Wolfsberg Group Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire 2014, Section 5: Sanctions Policy, page 12

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.1: Sanctions

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 109

The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4th AMLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the Union’s financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the provisions of the 4th AMLD is to lower the currency threshold for cash payments from €15,000 to €10,000. This means that any person who makes or receives cash payments of €10,000 or more, whether in a single transaction or in several linked transactions, is subject to customer due diligence and record-keeping obligations. The 4th AMLD also extends its applicability to providers of gambling services, which are now listed as ‘obliged entities’.