Pass the ACAMS AML Certifications CAMS Questions and answers with CertsForce

A financial institution (FI) should exit a relationship when the suspicious conduct of the account holder or the FI’s stated policies and procedures for closing an account warrant such action. A FI has the right and responsibility to terminate a customer relationship that poses an unacceptable level of risk to the FI or violates its AML/CFT program. A FI should have clear and consistent criteria for exiting a relationship, such as the number and severity of SARs filed, the nature and extent of due diligence conducted, the availability and effectiveness of mitigating controls, and the alignment of the customer profile with the FI’s risk appetite. A FI should also document the rationale and process for exiting a relationship, communicate the decision to the customer and relevant stakeholders, and monitor the account until closure.

The reputational risk to the FI posed by closing the account or the request from law enforcement to close the account are not valid reasons for exiting a relationship by themselves. A FI should consider the potential reputational impact of closing an account, but it should not outweigh the legal and regulatory obligations of the FI to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. A FI should also cooperate with law enforcement requests, but it should not automatically close an account based on such requests, as they may interfere with ongoing investigations or intelligence gathering. A FI should exercise its own judgment and discretion in deciding whether to exit a relationship, based on its own policies and procedures and the facts and circumstances of each case.

Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy

De-risking your SARs: Building SAR relationship exit strategies into your AML/CFT program

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

USA PATRIOT Act Section 319(b)gives theU.S. governmentthe power toseize fundsfroma U.S. correspondent bank account held for a foreign bank, if the funds are linked to illicit activity.

Option C (Correct):Section 319(b) explicitly allows asset forfeiturefromforeign correspondent bank accounts in the U.S.

Option A (Incorrect):Section 319(a)grants U.S. regulatorsfaster access to bank records(within120 hours).

Option B (Incorrect):Section 314(a)deals withinformation sharing between banks and law enforcement.

Option D (Incorrect):Section 314(b)allowsbanks to voluntarily share AML information among themselves.

 A key reason why a FI conducts an enterprise-wide AML risk assessment is to assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks and ensure there are adequate controls to mitigate those risks. An enterprise-wide AML risk assessment allows the FI to identify and appropriately manage the ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks within its banking operations. It also helps the FI to establish global AML control standards and determine the effectiveness of its AML risk management program, including internal preventive and detective controls. By understanding its risk profile, the FI can better apply appropriate risk management processes to the BSA/AML compliance program to mitigate and manage risk and comply with BSA regulatory requirements. The BSA/AML risk assessment should provide a comprehensive analysis of the FI’s ML/TF and other illicit financial activity risks, and should be documented in writing and communicated to all relevant stakeholders.

1: Enterprise Wide AML, CTF,Sanctions Risk Assessment (EWRA … - Eloquens2

3: BSA/AML Risk Assessment - FFIEC BSA/AML3

2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination2

The charity frequently withdrawing cash from the bank indicates possible terrorist financing, as cash transactions are often used to conceal the source, destination, and purpose of funds. Cash transactions also make it difficult to trace the flow of funds and identify the beneficiaries. Terrorist financiers may use charities as a cover to collect and distribute funds for their activities, and may exploit the cash-based nature of charitable donations to avoid detection12.

 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.

9 Things to Consider When Evaluating an AML Solution

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 38.

 the internal investigation did not examine the brokerage account, which could be a potential source of money laundering. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the common methods of money laundering is to use securities brokers to move funds through the purchase and sale of stocks, bonds, or other instruments1. The customer’s frequent transfers from the business account to the brokerage account, and the increased volume of activity in the business account, could indicate that the customer is trying to disguise the origin or ownership of illicit funds by investing them in money market securities. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should recommend the internal investigator to concentrate on the trades made in the brokerage account, and to look for any signs of market manipulation, insider trading, or unusual patterns of transactions1.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 55-56.

The anti-money laundering officer should advise the bank that compliance should have been involved during product development to perform a risk assessment of the product. This is because stored-value cards are considered high-risk products for money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to store, transfer, or access funds anonymously, across borders, or through third parties. A risk assessment would help the bank identify and mitigate the potential vulnerabilities and threats associated with the product, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and training. A risk assessment would also help the bank comply with the regulatory requirements and expectations for offering such products, as well as the industry best practices and standards.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2, p. 140-1411

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, 6th Edition, Domain 1, Task 1.1, p. 42

FATF Guidance on the Risk-Based Approach for Prepaid Cards, Mobile Payments and Internet-Based Payment Services, June 2013, p. 9-103

A: Selling assets at a significant loss, especially shortly after purchase, is a classic red flag for asset laundering and value manipulation, which can be used to disguise the true nature of proceeds.

C: Transactions involving individuals from high-risk jurisdictions, as identified by the EU and FATF, warrant heightened scrutiny due to increased ML/TF risk.(CAMS 6th Edition, Red Flags for Complex Asset Transactions; EU List of High-Risk Third Countries)

B and D may contribute to complexity but are not the primary red flags in this scenario.

 According to the Basel Committee guidelines, banks should formulate a customer acceptance policy and a tiered customer identification programme that involves more extensive due diligence for higher risk customers12. The customer acceptance policy should be approved by senior management and include clear guidelines on the types of customers that are likely to pose a higher than average risk to the bank1. Senior management should also ensure that the bank has adequate resources and systems to effectively manage the risks associated with higher risk customers1. Therefore, senior management should determine whether or not to enter business relationships with higher risk customers, based on the bank’s risk appetite, policies, and procedures.

The susceptibility of a company or jurisdiction to ML/TF abuse is significantly increased by:

Permissibility of bearer shares (B):“Bearer shares make it easy to hide ownership and control, presenting a major risk for misuse by criminals.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Beneficial Ownership and Company Transparency)

Rules governing the disclosure of beneficial ownership by the jurisdiction (C):“Weak requirements or loopholes in beneficial ownership disclosure are frequently exploited to conceal criminal involvement in corporate structures.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: Legal Persons and Arrangements)

Incorrect Options:

A: High or low fees are not a significant ML/TF risk driver.

D: Ease of travel is unrelated to ML/TF risk related to company structures.

The customer directing the payment of the money borrowed to an unrelated third party is a red flag for potential money laundering, as it could indicate layering or integration of illicit funds. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they could warrant further monitoring or due diligence depending on the customer profile and risk assessment.

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, two channels that can be utilized during a cross-border money laundering investigation to assist in gathering information are contacting existing liaison officers in the foreign jurisdiction and exchanging information between national law enforcement agencies. These are two of the methods that the FATF recommends in its guidance on international cooperation1. The FATF states thatliaison officers can facilitate the exchange of information and intelligence, provide operational support, and coordinate joint investigations1. The FATF also encourages the use of bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements to enable the exchange of information and intelligence between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the use of informal networks or mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units1.

Option C is incorrect because contacting the potential suspect or their family members to request information is not a recommended channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. This method may alert the suspect of the investigation, compromise the confidentiality of the information, or violate the legal rights of the suspect or their family members. Moreover, the information obtained from the suspect or their family members may not be reliable or admissible in court.

Option D is incorrect because submitting only formal requests for information to a financial intelligence unit (FIU) is not a sufficient channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. While FIUs play an important role in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating financial information, they are not the only source of information for cross-border investigations. The FATF guidance states that investigators should also seek information from other competent authorities, such as law enforcement, supervisory, or judicial authorities, depending on the nature and purpose of the information sought1. Furthermore, the FATF guidance advises investigators to use both formal and informal channels of communication, as formal requests may take longer or face legal obstacles1.

1: FATF, International Co-operation Review Group, Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, October 2012, pp. 13-18.

According to Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. financial institutions that provide correspondent accounts to foreign banks must maintain records of the owners of the foreign banks and the name and address of a U.S. resident authorized to accept service of legal process for records regarding the correspondent accounts. This requirement is intended to prevent foreign shell banks from accessing the U.S. financial system and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing activities involving foreign banks.

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street

Foreign Correspondent Banking Fact Sheet - U.S. Department of the Treasury

FACT SHEET for Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act Final Regulation and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | FinCEN.gov

TheEgmont Groupis aninternational network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)thatenhances cooperation and information sharing to combat financial crime.

Option A (Correct):The Egmont Groupimproves global cooperationby enabling FIUsto exchange financial intelligence securely.

Option C (Correct):Thegroup facilitates secure communication channelsforsharing money laundering and terrorist financing intelligence.

Option E (Correct):TheEgmont Group fosters trust between FIUs, allowing them to work collaborativelyon cross-border investigations.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not negotiate case-by-case memoranda of understanding (MoUs)for individual cases.

Option D (Incorrect):The Egmont Groupdoes not draft AML legislation; itprovides guidance but does not have regulatory authority.

Key Functions of the Egmont Group:

Facilitating cross-border cooperation among FIUs.

Providing a secure network (Egmont Secure Web) for intelligence sharing.

Developing best practices for AML/CFT investigations.

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.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

While this behavior may warrant scrutiny in certain circumstances, it is not inherently suspicious or indicative of money laundering. In contrast, the other behaviors listed (living beyond one's means, excessive unresolved exceptions, and using company resources for personal gain) may suggest that an employee is engaging in or facilitating money laundering activity.

Under the Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles, conducting enhanced due diligence (EDD) is an obligation for correspondent banking clients that present greater risks. This may include conducting additional research and analysis of the client's background, ownership structure, and transactions. EDD may also involve obtaining additional documentation, verifying the client's identity, and conducting periodic reviews to ensure ongoing compliance. The level of EDD required should be commensurate with the level of risk posed by the correspondent banking relationship. Therefore, option B and D are incorrect. Option A is not specific enough to address the question. Option C is the correct answer as it highlights the importance of senior management approval for high-risk relationships, which is a key component of EDD.

When a high volume of incoming wire transfers generates an alert about a client and the funds are immediately debited by cash withdrawals and outgoing wire transfers, the first information that should be reviewed to investigate this alert/case is the customer’s account activity. This is because the account activity can reveal the origin, destination, purpose, frequency, and amount of the wire transfers, as well as any unusual or inconsistent patterns that may indicate money laundering or fraud. The account activity can also help to compare the wire transfers with the customer’s profile, risk rating, expected behavior, and source of funds. Reviewing the account activity can help to determine if the alert is a false positive or a true positive, and if further investigation or reporting is required.

Terminating customer relationships due toAML risksrequiresclear procedures and documentation.

Option B (Correct):Astandardized termination procedureensurescompliance, fairness, and consistency.

Option C (Correct):Afinal review of transactionshelps identifysuspicious activity before closure.

Option D (Correct):Documenting termination decisionsprotects the FI fromlegal and regulatory risks.

Option A (Incorrect):Whileclear communication is important, termination decisions should beconsistent and policy-driven.

Option E (Incorrect):Customers should benotified appropriatelybut not necessarilyaftertermination.