Vce CAMS Questions Latest

The USA PATRIOT Act of 20011 is a comprehensive anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation that grants various powers and authorities to the US government to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. Among its provisions, Title III of the Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 20012, specifically addresses the issue of correspondent banking and the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing through foreign banks that maintain accounts with US banks. Section 319 of Title III3 authorizes the US Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a subpoena or summons to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the US, and to request any records relating to such account, including records maintained outside the US. Furthermore, Section 319(b) of Title III4 allows the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the foreign bank fails to comply with such a subpoena or summons, or if the US authorities initiate a civil forfeiture action against the funds in the correspondent account. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is the correct answer, as it enables the US authorities to seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, if the correspondent account is found to have facilitated a transaction involving tainted funds.

Transaction monitoring alerts requirefurther analysisto determine whether they indicategenuine suspicious activity or a false positive.

Option C (Correct):Requesting information from the relationship manager helps gather customer background details, past transaction patterns, and business rationale.

Option A (Incorrect):Below-the-line testing assesses system effectiveness but does not resolve an immediate AML alert.

Option B (Incorrect):Directly contacting a counterparty bank may violate privacy regulations and should only be done if escalation is required.

Option D (Incorrect):Restricting access without due diligence may lead to regulatory and reputational risks.

Best Practices for Investigating AML Alerts:

Review transaction history and customer risk profile.

Engage the relationship manager for business context.

Escalate to AML compliance teams if red flags persist.

Aneffective AML programbalancesalert accuracy and operational efficiency.

Option D (Correct):The true positive vs. false positive ratio reflects the efficiency and accuracy of an AML transaction monitoring system.

Option A (Incorrect):The number of alerts does not indicate system effectiveness—many could be false positives.

Option B (Incorrect):Clients exiting for commercial reasons are unrelated to AML efficiency.

Option C (Incorrect):Tracking high-risk customer onboarding is important but does not measure AML effectiveness.

Best Practices for Measuring AML Effectiveness:

Monitor system efficiency through alert validation metrics.

Reduce false positives while maintaining regulatory compliance.

Enhance machine learning and AI models for transaction monitoring.

One of the core components of a strong AFC (Anti-Financial Crimes) compliance program is establishingclear roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability, especially forescalating and addressing AFC risks and compliance issues. This governance clarity ensures effective implementation, transparency in decision-making, and timely resolution of compliance concerns.

While external audits (option A) and internal controls (option B) are important,defining governance structure and escalation responsibilities (option D)is a foundational element. Additionally, the board of directors (option C) provides oversight—not day-to-day compliance monitoring.