ACAMS CAMS-FCI Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations Exam Practice Test

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) study guide, 6th edition, page 105, the correct answer is C. It can be difficult to determine if there is negative media associated with counterparties solely from the customer's account activity and KYC file.

The study guide explains that negative media can include news articles, government sanctions lists, and other sources of public information that may indicate that a counterparty is involved in illicit activities. However, this information may not be readily available in a customer's account activity or KYC file, and may require additional research or investigation.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Manual , 6th edition, if a bank's transaction surveillance system triggers an alert for a deposit of 250.000 USD into a client's account, the bank should take the following actions:

• Request information and documentation from the client on the background of the transaction (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 46).
• Contact the client advisor to learn if he has any insight on the transaction background (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).
• Review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

Discarding the alert as a false positive hit and reviewing the alert if the deposit is made in cash should not be done.

The bank should request additional information and documentation from the client to better understand the nature of the transaction. Additionally, the bank should reach out to the client advisor to learn if they have any insight on the transaction background. Finally, the bank should review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform to determine if any additional alerts or anomalies are present. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Pages 117-118)

The correct answer is B because the FATF recommendations state that financial institutions should provide feedback to the FIU as quickly as possible, especially in cases involving the financing of terrorism that could imply an imminent threat to the country. Option A is incorrect because requesting an official court subpoena would delay the response and might not be necessary for the FIU to access the information. Option C is incorrect because establishing a committee would also delay the response and might not be in compliance with the FIU’s request. Option D is incorrect because informing the public relations department is irrelevant to the question and might compromise the confidentiality of the investigation.

References: FATF Recommendations, Recommendation 29; Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 4.

The correct answer is C because reviewing the structure of the transactions to the three entities can help the investigator to identify any red flags or indicators of fraud, such as unusual amounts, frequency, destinations, or beneficiaries. The other options are not as relevant or effective in this scenario. Option A is not necessary because the investigator already knows the source of funds for the customer. Option B is not advisable because contacting the customer directly may alert them to the investigation and compromise its integrity. Option D is not helpful because inspecting electronic banking login records does not provide any information about the nature or purpose of the transactions.

References:

• Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 281
• Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate Certificate Course, Module 32

The main premise for filing a SAR/STR is that the entity is not implementing adequate internal controls according to what is expected, and mishandling of funds could be occurring. This raises suspicion that the entity may be involved in corruption, fraud, or diversion of funds for illicit purposes. Trust service providers are obliged by law to follow government internal controls, as they are subject to AML/CFT regulations and supervision. Cash disbursements are allowed for social welfare programs, but they should be properly documented and verified. Social welfare programs are not necessarily difficult to document, as there are ways to identify and monitor the beneficiaries, such as biometric data or unique identifiers.

The FI is required to ensure that the request includes an end date © when it receives a keep open letter from LE for the identified account. This is because the FI has to balance its legal obligations to cooperate with LE and to protect its customers’ privacy and rights. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should request a written confirmation from LE that includes a specific end date for the request, as well as a point of contact for any questions or concerns” (p. 35). The FI should also document the request and its compliance with it, and continue to monitor the account for any suspicious activity.

The other options are not correct. The FI should not contact the client for information relating to the account (A), as this could compromise the LE investigation or alert the client of the suspicion. The FI should not stop filing SAR/STR reports on the account and/or customer (B), as this could violate its regulatory obligations and expose it to legal risks. The FI should not notify LE immediately after new transactions (D), as this could also interfere with the LE investigation or tip off the client. The FI should follow the instructions of LE regarding when and how to share information.

Deposit trading is a pattern of suspicious activity where a client deposits large amounts of money into an account, and then transfers the funds to other accounts, often in different jurisdictions or countries. This could be an attempt to disguise the source or destination of the funds, or to avoid reporting requirements. Deposit trading is also known as layering, which is the second stage of money laundering.

References: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, page 43; ACAMS Glossary, page 34.

Verified Answer: D The recommendation that the AMLO should make is to conduct an in-depth investigation into accumulated remittance information in the past year to find the trend of such transactions. This is because the regular and increasing remittances from a country with high piracy activity may indicate a possible link to illicit funds derived from piracy or other criminal activities. According to the World Bank, remittances are often used as a channel for money laundering and terrorist financing, especially when they originate from or are destined to high-risk jurisdictions1. Therefore, the AMLO should analyze the remittance data to identify the sources, destinations, amounts, frequencies, and purposes of the transactions, and compare them with the customer profiles, expected activities, and risk ratings. The AMLO should also review any relevant information from external sources, such as media reports, sanctions lists, or law enforcement alerts, to determine if there are any red flags or indicators of suspicious activity. If the investigation reveals any evidence or suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing, the AMLO should file a SAR/STR to the appropriate AML authority.

References:

Remittances data - Migration data portal

The best reason for an investigator to continue an investigation is that the end-user is a military force. This is because supplying aviation parts to a military force may involve sanctions risk, export control risk, or human rights risk, depending on the nature and destination of the military force. The investigator should conduct further due diligence to determine if the customer is complying with the relevant laws and regulations, and if the bank is exposed to any reputational or legal risk by providing services to the customer.

References:

• Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …
• Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …
• Former airline employee and aircraft part sellers charged in kickback …

The purchase of airplane tickets after receiving multiple small deposits from a crowdfunding platform might suggest that the funds are being used to facilitate travel for terrorist purposes. The other options are not necessarily indicative of terrorist financing, as they could be explained by legitimate reasons or other types of financial crimes.

The SAR/STR should include any information that is relevant to the suspicious activity, such as the customer information, the transaction details, and any other indicators of potential money laundering or criminal activity. The fact that one of the transactors occasionally smelled of marijuana smoke is an indicator that the customer may be involved in the illicit drug trade, which is a predicate offense for money laundering. Therefore, this information should be included in the SAR/STR. References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 25.

A SAR/STR narrative that is useful to law enforcement should include a detailed description of the known or suspected criminal violation or suspicious activity, as well as ensure that all information in the SAR/STR is complete and accurate based on what the institution knows. These elements help law enforcement to understand the nature and scope of the suspicious activity, and to follow up with further investigation if needed. The other options are not essential for a useful SAR/STR narrative, as they either provide irrelevant or redundant information, or could compromise the confidentiality of the report.

The initial focus of the investigation should be to review the customer due diligence documents of each entity and examine the year of incorporation and onboarding channel, as this would help identify the beneficial owners, the source of funds, and the purpose of the business relationship. This would also help determine if the entities are shell companies or have any red flags that indicate potential misuse of legal persons. Using data analytics to extract and analyze the linkages between the different entities would be a subsequent step, not the initial one. Conducting a network link analysis on all customers of the bank would be too broad and time-consuming. Finding out whether customer A has relationships with other financial institutions would be relevant, but not the initial focus. References: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 44-45; [FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership], page 12-13.

According to the CAMS manual 6th edition, the USA PATRIOT Act allows the US government to subpoena documents from foreign financial institutions (FIs) that have no presence in the US (option B). The manual states that "The USA PATRIOT Act provides US law enforcement agencies with the power to subpoena documents from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks or have no presence in the United States" (p. 77).

Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act allows financial institutions to share information with each other, under a safe harbor that offers protection from liability, in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist financing activities. The intended benefits of this information sharing include:

Participating financial institutions sharing information about suspicious activity by customers that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, if a customer is conducting transactions with multiple financial institutions that individually do not appear suspicious, but collectively indicate a pattern of money laundering or terrorist financing, the financial institutions can share this information and report it to the authorities.

Detecting money laundering and terrorist financing approaches and schemes across multiple financial institutions. For example, if a financial institution identifies a new typology or modus operandi of money laundering or terrorist financing, it can share this information with other financial institutions to help them prevent or detect similar activities by their customers.

Obtaining additional information on customers or transactions regarding potential money laundering or terrorist financing. For example, if a financial institution has incomplete or insufficient information on a customer or a transaction that raises suspicion, it can request more information from another financial institution that may have dealt with the same customer or transaction.

References:

• Section 314(b) | FinCEN.gov
• Section 314(b) Fact Sheet - FinCEN.gov

The total suspicious transaction amount that the investigator should report is 659,000,000 USD. This is the sum of the two transactions involving the LLC and the state-run oil company, which are 59,000,000 USD and 600,000,000 USD respectively. The other transactions that the LLC made to other accounts, a money brokerage firm, and real estate purchases are not relevant to the question, as they are not part of the series of transactions that triggered the alert.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS

The SAR/STR narrative should include the suspicious accounts and transactions identified, as well as the reasons why they are considered suspicious. The narrative should provide a clear and concise description of the activity, the parties involved, the dates, amounts, and frequencies of the transactions, and any other relevant information that would assist law enforcement in understanding the nature and purpose of the activity. The narrative should not include the investigator’s subjective opinion, personal tax records, or supporting documentation that is not essential to explain the suspicious activity. Supporting documentation can be attached separately to the SAR/STR form or provided upon request by law enforcement.

The most likely reason for conducting a reverse transaction is to conceal or launder illicit funds. A reverse transaction is a transaction that reverses a previous transaction, such as a refund, a chargeback, or a cancellation. Reverse transactions can be used by money launderers to obscure the source, ownership, or destination of funds, or to create false records or invoices. For example, a money launderer may initiate a wire transfer from a high-risk jurisdiction to a low-risk jurisdiction, and then reverse the transaction after receiving confirmation of the funds. This way, the money launderer can create a paper trail that shows legitimate funds coming from a low-risk jurisdiction, while hiding the true origin of the funds.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 40-41.

The OFAC sanctions screening audit program should include the requirement that all clients with foreign identification are subject to enhanced due diligence, as this provides an extra layer of protection against potential violations of OFAC sanctions.

The step that the investigator should take next is to flag the nephew as a PEP by association (D). This is because the nephew is related to a general who is a senior military official and 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 file a SAR/STR in relation to corruption involving the nephew and the general (A), as this could be premature or unnecessary, as there is no evidence of corruption or criminal activity between them. The investigator should not determine whether there is a business relationship between the nephew and the general (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew and the general are customers of different banks and are not involved in the same transaction. The investigator should not seek senior management approval to continue the relationship with the nephew ©, as this could be premature or disproportionate, as there is no indication that the nephew poses a high risk or requires termination.

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

The next best course of action for the investigator is to file a SAR/STR on the account activity in relation to a potential funnel account. This is because a funnel account is a type of money laundering scheme that involves depositing funds from multiple sources into a single account, and then transferring them to another account, often in a different jurisdiction. A funnel account can be used to conceal the origin, ownership, and destination of illicit funds, and to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. The investigator should report the suspicious activity to the relevant authorities and document the findings and actions taken. The other options are incorrect because:

A. Completing the monthly review and noting the activity for next month’s review is not sufficient, as it delays the reporting of a possible money laundering scheme and exposes the financial institution to regulatory and reputational risks.

C. Recommending the account for exit due to frequent global transactions is not appropriate, as it does not address the underlying issue of potential money laundering and may alert the customer of the investigation.

D. No further action is required as the customer is already rated at high-risk and the monthly spending is within expectations is not acceptable, as it ignores the red flags of a funnel account and fails to comply with the anti-money laundering obligations of the financial institution.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS, Section 2: Investigating Financial Crimes, page 9

Leading Complex Investigations Certificate | ACAMS, Module 2: Identifying Red Flags, page 5

Money laundering through online marketplaces and trade-based money laundering both involve the manipulation of the value or quantity of goods to disguise the illicit origin of funds. Over-valuation of the stated price of goods and no evidence of delivery of goods or shipping expenses are two common indicators of such schemes. The other options are not specific to these methods of money laundering.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 29-30.

One of the actions that is part of the enhanced due diligence process is collecting beneficial ownership details regarding the client’s account. This is important to identify the natural persons who ultimately own or control the client, and to assess the potential risks associated with them. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), beneficial ownership information should include1:

• The name, nationality, and country of residence of each beneficial owner.
• The date of birth or incorporation of each beneficial owner.
• The nature and extent of the beneficial interest held by each beneficial owner.
• The means by which the beneficial ownership or control is exercised.

References:

FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership

The additional information that would trigger filing a SAR/STR is the fact that the funds for the seed capital were in the form of 50 cashier’s checks of 10,000 GBP each and 50 money orders of 10,000 GBP. This is because this indicates a possible attempt to avoid the reporting threshold of 10,000 GBP for cash transactions, which is a common money laundering technique known as structuring or smurfing12. The other options are not necessarily suspicious, as they do not involve cash transactions or indicate any illicit source of funds. The fact that the client’s spouse was a PEP does not automatically make the transaction suspicious unless there are other red flags or risk factors associated with the PEP34

References: 1: Money Laundering Techniques 2: Structuring 3: Politically exposed person 4: PEP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

According to the FinCEN’s 314(a) Fact Sheet1, the steps that the investigator should take when fulfilling the request are:

• Search its records expeditiously to determine whether it maintains(ed) any accounts for the subject(s) listed in the request. This is option F.
• Report back to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within 15 days of receipt of the request via a secure internet website. This is option E.
• Report to Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) that a match was found without revealing any other details. This is option D.

The other options are incorrect because:

• Exiting the relationship with the business since it appears that customer is under investigation is not required by the 314(a) program and may interfere with law enforcement’s investigation. This is option A.
• Not responding to Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) if the requested information is not present in the financial institution’s system of records is contrary to the 314(a) program, which requires financial institutions to respond whether or not they have a match. This is option B.
• Reviewing the account(s) activity and proactively filing a SAR/STR using the 314(a) request as the basis for the filing is not appropriate, as the 314(a) request itself is not a sufficient reason to file a SAR/STR. The financial institution should only file a SAR/STR if it has its own independent suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. This is option C.

References: 1: FinCEN’s 314(a) Fact Sheet

The Fl should review the corporate account’s activity and transactions. This is because a grand jury subpoena is a legal request for information or testimony that may be used in a criminal investigation or prosecution. The Fl should review the account for any suspicious or unusual activity that may be related to the subpoena or indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes. The Fl should also document its review and retain any relevant records.

References: Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 3, page 14.

A country that does not have strong predicate offenses and is lax in prosecuting AML cases could suffer increased organized crime and corruption as a social/economic consequence. "Weaknesses in the AML/CFT regime can lead to a range of economic and social consequences, including...increased crime and corruption." (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 32)

The FIU should cross-reference the databases of international commerce/logistics transactions between the country and WMD proliferation sanctioned states with the corresponding international financial operations of those transactions, as this would help identify any discrepancies or anomalies that could indicate sanctions evasion. The FIU should also evaluate a sample of the amount of false-positive and false-negative alerts that FIs have regarding proliferation sanctions evasion to determine root causes of non-detection, such as inadequate screening systems, lack of training, or human error. These actions would help the FIU assess the proliferation financing risk and provide feedback and guidance to FIs on how to improve their detection and prevention capabilities.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 32-33; [FATF Guidance on Counter Proliferation Financing], page 15-16.

An investigator should avoid escalating a suspicious event to the chief compliance officer if there is a potential conflict of interest, such as when a close family member of the officer is involved in the transaction. In such a case, the investigator should pursue other channels, such as reporting to a higher authority or an independent committee. The other options do not present a conflict of interest and should be escalated to the chief compliance officer as part of the normal procedure.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 18.

The reason why it is important for the casino to maintain control of the output from the provider is that the casino maintains ultimate responsibility for this activity and should maintain control to avoid non-compliance ©. This is because the casino is accountable for its own AML/CFT obligations and cannot delegate or outsource them to a third-party provider. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should ensure that it has adequate oversight and control over any third-party providers that it engages for AML/CFT purposes, such as conducting due diligence, verifying information, or monitoring transactions” (p. 25). The FI should also “review and evaluate the performance and quality of the third-party providers on a regular basis, and address any issues or gaps that may arise” (p. 25).

The other options are not as relevant or accurate as option C. The clients of the casino prefer to know that the casino is keeping their information secure when being held by a third-party (A) is not a reason why the casino should maintain control of the output from the provider, but rather a customer expectation or preference. As with all third-party relationships, proper control must be maintained to ensure profitability (B) is not a reason why the casino should maintain control of the output from the provider, but rather a general business principle or objective. Other casinos are frequently looking to reduce costs and share ideas, so if this relationship is successful, the model can be used by other businesses (D) is not a reason why the casino should maintain control of the output from the provider, but rather a potential benefit or outcome.