New Release CAMS-FCI AML Certifications Questions

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from insider trading, which is a form of market abuse and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions. The fact that the originator was indicted by U.S. law enforcement, arrested in Switzerland, and extradited for alleged insider trading indicates that there is a strong suspicion that the funds are derived from criminal activity. The other options are not sufficient reasons to file a SAR/STR, as they do not directly relate to the nature or source of the funds.

References: [Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks and Vulnerabilities Associated with Gold], page 17 : [Leading Complex Investigations Certificate], page 12

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from illegal wildlife trade, which is a serious financial crime and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions3. The fact that the incoming funds came from pet stores, breeders, and private individuals suggests that the import company may be involved in smuggling or trafficking endangered or protected animals or their parts4. The outgoing wires to Indonesia and Uganda, which are known source countries for wildlife trafficking, may indicate payments to suppliers or facilitators of this illicit activity.

References: 3: Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering from the Illegal Wildlife Trade, page 9 4: Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate, page 18 : [World Wildlife Crime Report], page 16

The instruction that the person in charge of the broker-dealer should provide to their employees is to take notes on the questions and comments made by the agents (A). This is because taking notes can help the employees to recall and document what happened during the search warrant execution, which can be useful for legal or regulatory purposes. According to ACAMS3, “the FI should instruct its staff to cooperate with LE agents during a search warrant execution, but also to take notes of what is being searched, seized, or asked by the agents” (p. 35). The FI should also “keep copies of any documents or records that are taken by LE agents” (p. 35).

The other instructions are not correct. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to sign consent forms permitting the agents to search employees’ offices (B), as this is unnecessary and potentially risky, as the agents already have a valid search warrant that authorizes them to search the premises. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to provide agents with unlimited access to customers’ personal data ©, as this could violate privacy or data protection laws, as well as compromise customer trust and confidentiality. The person in charge of the broker-dealer should not instruct their employees to volunteer information not requested by the agents that they think may be useful (D), as this could interfere with the LE investigation or expose them to legal or regulatory risks.

References:

• Introduction to Transnational Organized Crime
• ACAMS Law Enforcement and Financial Crimes Investigations eLearning Course Module
• Law Enforcement Requests and Actions

The investigator should determine that a nephew of the general (Bank A’s customer) should be flagged as a senior PEP ©. This is because the nephew is related to a senior military official who is a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners” (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general should be treated well to avoid reputational damage to the bank (A), as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a high-net-worth individual (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew’s wealth does not affect his potential PEP status or risk level. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a trustworthy source (D), as this could be biased or inaccurate, as the nephew’s trustworthiness does not depend on his relation to the general or his involvement in the transaction.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS