Latest Exam Prep

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

Explanation
https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs85.pdf – page 12
Banks should gather sufficient information about their respondent banks to understand fully the nature of the respondent’s business. Factors to consider include: information about the respondent bank’s management, major business activities, where they are located and its money-laundering prevention and detection efforts; the purpose of the account; the identity of any third party entities that will use the correspondent banking services; and the condition of bank regulation and supervision in the respondent’s country. Banks should only establish correspondent relationships with foreign banks that are effectively supervised by the relevant authorities. For their part, respondent banks should have effective customer acceptance and KYC policies.

the compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement investigation, but only after receiving a formal written request that specifies the scope and purpose of the information sought. This is to ensure that the compliance officer complies with the legal and regulatory obligations of the bank, such as confidentiality, privacy, and data protection. The compliance officer should also document the request and the information provided, and report the incident to the senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.
Reference:
FFIEC BSA/AML Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program – BSA Compliance Officer, section “BSA Compliance Officer”, paragraph 3: “The BSA compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is implemented effectively, including timely updates in response to changes in regulations or business activities, and for managing all aspects of the BSA/AML compliance program. The BSA compliance officer is also responsible for ensuring that the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program is communicated to all personnel and that adequate training is provided to appropriate personnel.” Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers, section “Guidelines on the role of AML/CFT compliance officers”, paragraph 36: “The AML/CFT compliance officer should ensure that the institution cooperates with the competent authorities, including by providing them with all the information they require in a timely manner, in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.” Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer Job Description, section “Responsibilities of an AML Compliance Officer”, bullet point 6: “Cooperate with law enforcement and regulatory bodies as required.”

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision principles, the most important question the banker should ask when opening a numbered or alternate name account is who will control the account. This is because such accounts pose a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can be used to conceal the identity and beneficial ownership of the funds. Therefore, the banker should perform enhanceddue diligence and verify the identity and source of funds of the person who has the authority to operate the account, as well as the purpose and nature of the business relationship12 The other questions are less relevant or secondary to the issue of control. The inheritance of the proceeds in the event of the businessman’s death is a matter of succession law and does not affect the identification of the beneficial owner. The amount of money deposited into the account may indicate the level of risk, but does not reveal the origin or destination of the funds. The account-opening date is a procedural detail thatdoes not affect the compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards12
1: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – Core principles for effective banking supervision, 2012, Principle 14 and Essential Criterion 14.1
2: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, 2014, Paragraphs 30 and 31

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the institution should develop a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. This is because the customer’s behavior and profile may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:
* Operating an import-export business, which is a common sector for trade-based money laundering, where trade transactions are used to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under- invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents1.
* Receiving funds from a jurisdiction perceived as highly corrupt, which may increase the risk of the funds being derived from bribery, embezzlement, fraud, or other predicate offences2. Transparency International is a global civil society organization that publishes an annual CorruptionPerceptions Index, which ranks countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption based on expert assessments and surveys3.
* Making frequent transfers among the accounts, which may indicate a layering technique, where funds are moved through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership of the funds4.
* Preferring to manage the accounts separately, which may indicate a lack of transparency or an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the institution.
By developing a system to monitor all the activity of the customer’s accounts, the institution can:
* Identify and verify the identity and beneficial ownership of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.
* Obtain and verify information on the nature and purpose of the business relationship and the source and destination of the funds.
* Conduct a risk assessment of the customer and the transactions based on the customer’s profile, behavior, and geographic locations.
* Apply enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring measures for higher-risk customers and transactions, such as obtaining additional information, documentation, or approval, or conducting more frequent or in-depth reviews.
* Detect and report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.
The other three options are incorrect because:
* File a suspicious transaction report is not the best answer, as it is a reactive measure that should be taken after the institution has identified or suspected money laundering or terrorist financing activity, not before. The institution should first conduct due diligence and monitoring of the customer and the transactions, and then file a report if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the activity is suspicious or unusual.
* Diminish the importance of the subjective Transparency International rating is not the best answer, as it is a complacent and irresponsible attitude that may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, reputational, or operational risks. The Transparency International rating is not subjective, but based on credible sources and methodologies, and it is widely used as a reference by governments, businesses, civil society, and the public to assess the level of corruption in different countries3. The institution should not ignore or downplay the rating, but rather use it as one of the factors to evaluate the risk of the customer and the transactions.
* Conduct a trade-price manipulation analysis is not the best answer, as it is a specific and technical measure that may not be sufficient or appropriate to mitigate the risk associated with these accounts. A trade-price manipulation analysis is a method of detecting trade-based money laundering by comparing the prices of goods or services in a transaction with the market prices or other benchmarks, and identifying any significant discrepancies or anomalies. However, this measure may not be feasible or effective if the institution does not have access to reliable and comparable data, or if the goods or services are not standardized or homogeneous. Moreover, this measure may not address other aspects of the risk, such as the identity, ownership, or behavior of the customer and the parties involved in the transactions.
:
1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 108 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 107 3: Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 3 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 :
ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 103 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 104 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 105 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 109

Failure to report suspected fraud activity is a serious breach of the anti-money laundering (AML) and anti- fraud obligations of a financial institution (FI). It could expose the FI to legal risks, such as civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage. One possible legal risk is that the FI could be held liable for the losses suffered by the victims of the fraudster, either by the victims themselves or by a third party acting on their behalf, such as a government agency or a class action representative. This could result in significant financial costs and damages for the FI, as well as loss of trust and confidence from its customers and stakeholders.
:
1: This web article explains what a suspicious activity report (SAR) is, who regulates it, when it is required, and what are the consequences of failing to file it.
2: This guide provides information on how to make a SAR, what to include, how to request a defence against money laundering (DAML), and what happens if you fail to report suspicious activity.
3: This blog post discusses the legal implications of not reporting an alleged crime, such as fraud, and gives examples of cases where individuals or entities were prosecuted or sued for their failure to report.

Using cash to buy multiple cashier’s checks over a period of time is considered suspicious activity of money laundering. This method is commonly known as structuring, where individuals or entities use cash to buy multiple monetary instruments such as cashier’s checks in small amounts, to avoid reporting requirements.
This behavior could be an attempt to evade transaction monitoring and reporting requirements by a financial institution. Additionally, the fact that the account also receives multiple electronic transfers for the same amount could be a red flag for money laundering as it is a common technique used to layer or disguise the origin of illicit funds.
Reference: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study Guide, page 100-101.

Explanation
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.

An anti-money laundering officer should coordinate with the human resources department when implementing a new hire screening program. A new hire screening program is a process of conducting background checks and verifying the identity, qualifications, and suitability of prospective employees, especially those who will be involved in the bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program. The human resources department is responsible for managing the recruitment, hiring, and training of employees, and ensuring that they comply with the bank’s policies and procedures. Therefore, the human resources department is the most appropriate partner for the anti-money laundering officer in developing and executing a new hire screening program that meets the bank’s AML standards and regulatory requirements.
The other options are not relevant or necessary for the implementation of a new hire screening program. The internal auditor is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness and adequacy of the bank’s internal controls, including the AML compliance program, but not for screening new hires. The local financial intelligence unit is a government agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates financial information related to money laundering and terrorist financing, but not for screening new hires. The institution’s regulator is the authority that supervises and examines the bank’s compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, including the AML requirements, but not for screening new hires.
Reference:
ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination (6th Edition), Chapter 4: Developing an AML/CFT Program 1 FFIEC BSA/AML Manual, Assessing the BSA/AML Compliance Program, BSA/AML Training 2 AUSTRAC, Employee due diligence 3

this activity is unusual and inconsistent with the expected behavior of an accounting firm’s operational account. The account should normally receive fees from clients that are proportional to the services rendered and reflect the market rates. Receiving international payments that are substantially higher than other fees could indicate that the account is being used to launder money or finance terrorism by disguising illicit funds as legitimate income. This could trigger a red flag for the bank and prompt a comprehensive review of the account.
ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.6, page 24: “Methods to launder money used in banks and other deposit taking institutions”.
ExamTopics, Question 446: “An accounting firm opened an account at a bank that is intended to be used as the operational account for the business. After a few months, a comprehensive review of the account was triggered due to unusual activity on the account. Which most likely triggered the review?”

Reference: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearerform.asp

The USA PATRIOT Act includes provisions allowing the U.S. government to seize assets linked to financial crime, even when held in foreign financial institutions.
Option A (Correct): Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act provides U.S. regulators with the authority to seize funds deposited in U.S. correspondent accounts of foreign banks if linked to illicit activity.
Option B (Incorrect): Section 314(a) focuses on information sharing between law enforcement and financial institutions.
Option C (Incorrect): Section 319(b) enables U.S. authorities to seize funds linked to foreign correspondent banking accounts, but 319(a) specifically deals with extraterritorial forfeiture.
Option D (Incorrect): Section 314(b) allows financial institutions to voluntarily share AML-related information.
Why This Matters:
Foreign banks using U.S. correspondent accounts can be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Helps U.S. law enforcement disrupt global money laundering networks.
Encourages financial institutions to enhance correspondent banking due diligence.
Reference:
USA PATRIOT Act Section 319(a) (Forfeiture of Funds)
FinCEN Guidelines on Correspondent Banking Risks
FATF Recommendation 13 (Correspondent Banking)