ACAMS CAMS Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Exam Practice Test

According to the CAMS Study Guide, EDD is a higher level of scrutiny applied to customers who pose a greater risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. EDD may include obtaining additional information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, businessactivities, beneficial owners, and expected transactions. Details on individuals with control over the account are relevant for EDD, as they may indicate the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs), sanctioned individuals, or other high-risk entities. Therefore, this information should be gathered as part of EDD for a high-risk customer.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the main challenges of providing on-line services to customers is the verification of theiridentity and the authentication of their transactions1. The lack of face-to-face contact and the use of electronic documents increase the risk of identity fraud, impersonation, and account takeover2. Therefore, financial institutions offering on-line services need to implement robust customer due diligence (CDD) measures, such as using multiple sources of information, verifying biometric data, and applying risk-based monitoring3.

The compliance officer should recommend an audit for cash transactions since the last compliance review, as this would help to identify the extent of the problem, the root causes, and the potential risks involved. The audit would also provide evidence for corrective actions and remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of non-compliance. The compliance officer should not recommend terminating or suspending the teller’s employment, as this would be premature and disproportionate without a thorough investigation and due process. The compliance officer should not recommend formally reprimanding the branch manager, as this would not address the underlying issues and could create a hostile work environment.

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a sound KYC program should include four essential elements: customer acceptance policy, customer identification, on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts, and risk management1. Customer acceptance policy defines the types of customers that the financial institution (FI) is willing to accept and the criteria for doing so. Customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers and obtaining information on their activities and sources of funds. On-going monitoring of higher risk accounts involves reviewing the transactions and behavior of the customers that pose higher risks of money laundering or terrorist financing and updating their information and risk profiles. Risk management involves establishing appropriate policies, procedures, controls, and audit functions to ensure the effective implementation and oversight of the KYC program1.

According to the web sources I found, FATF Recommendation 18 requires financial institutions to implement group-wide programmes against money laundering and terrorist financing that include policies and procedures for sharing information within the group for AML/CFT purposes12. These programmes should also include compliance management arrangements, screening procedures for hiring employees, an independent audit function and ongoing employee training1.

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure and verify transactions. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized and operate outside the control of any central authority, such as a government or a bank. This makes them attractive for money launderers, who can use them to transfer funds anonymously, quickly, and globally, without leaving a trace or being subject to regulation. Cryptocurrencies pose more risk of money laundering than other sources of money, such as wire transfers, credit cards, or money service businesses, which are subject to more oversight, verification, and reporting requirements.

The first valid step in the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) international cooperation process is for the central authority of the requesting country to send a letter of request to the central authority of the other country. The letter of request should provide a summary of the facts and information required, the reasons for the request, and any specific legal or procedural requirements that need to be met. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 233).

A domestic business account receiving a wire transfer from an international business with no history of such activity or business needs should be escalated as potentially suspicious activity. This is because this scenario may indicate an attempt to launder money, evade taxes, or finance terrorism through cross-border transfers that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose. The lack of prior relationship or business justification for the wire transfer may also suggest that the transaction is not consistent with the customer’s profile or expected activity. Therefore, this scenario should be investigated further and reported if necessary.

The compliance officer should evaluate the request, determine whether it is valid, and provide the necessary information, subject to management approval. It is important to follow the bank's policies and procedures for responding to law enforcement requests, including verifying the authenticity of the request and the identity of the officer making the request. Additionally, it is important to protect customer privacy and ensure that sensitive information is not released to unauthorized individuals. (Reference: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 6)

The methods that are typically used to launder money using insurance companies are:

The policy holder overpays the policy and moves the funds out of the policy despite paying early withdrawal penalties. This method involves placing large amounts of illicit funds into an insurance policy, usually a life insurance or an annuity, and then requesting a refund or a surrender of the policy. The policy holder may incur some fees or penalties for the early withdrawal, but they will receive a check or a wire transfer from the insurance company that appears to be a legitimate source of income. This method allows the launderer to layer and integrate the funds into the financial system.

The policy holder uses an offshore company to pay the insurance installments. This method involves setting up a shell company or a trust in a jurisdiction with low or no tax and weak or no anti-money laundering regulations. The launderer then uses the offshore entity to purchase an insurance policy or a bond from a reputable insurance company. The offshore entity pays the premiums or the installments using the illicit funds, and the launderer can claim thebenefits or the returns from the policy or the bond as clean money. This method allows the launderer to hide the true ownership and origin of the funds.

The other options are not typical methods of money laundering using insurance companies, because:

The policy holder enters a sibling as a beneficiary of the insurance policy rather than themselves. This method does not involve any movement or disguise of the illicit funds, and it does not generate any income or return for the launderer. The beneficiary of the policy will only receive the payout upon the death of the policy holder, and the insurance company will conduct due diligence on the beneficiary before releasing the funds.

The policy holder purchases a bond and redeems it at a discount prior to its full term. This method does not make sense for a money launderer, because it involves losing money rather than gaining money. A bond is a fixed-income instrument that pays a regular interest and a principal amount at maturity. If the bond is redeemed before its full term, the bond holder will receive less than the face value of the bond, and will also forfeit the future interest payments. This method does not help the launderer to conceal or legitimize the source of the funds.

The policy holder is strongly interested in how many costs are incurred when taking out an insurance policy. This method does not indicate any money laundering activity, but rather a prudent and rational behavior of a potential customer. The policy holder may want to compare different insurance products and providers, and to understand the fees, charges, commissions, and taxes associated with the policy. This method does not involve any placement, layering, or integration of the illicit funds.

Here is the exact information from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for Trust and Company Service Providers:

"Understanding the management and ownership structure of a trust is crucial in assessing the ML/TF risk it poses. This includes the identity of all settlors, trustees and beneficiaries, and their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as the nature and purpose of the trust."

"TCSPs should obtain and maintain up-to-date information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, the source of funds and wealth, and where relevant, the source of funds or wealth of the settlor and beneficiaries."

Based on this information, the correct answers are A and D. Trust and Company Service Providers must understand the responsibility and authority in the structure, as well as the general purpose behind the structure in order to assess the overall risk of the trust and ensure that any transactions with the trust are legitimate.

The Wolfsberg Group is an association of thirteen global banks that aims to develop guidance and standards for the management of financial crime risks. The Group has issued a number of documents since its inception to provide financial institutions with an industry perspective on effective financial crime risk management.

C. FSRBs play an essential role in identifying and addressing AML technical assistance needs for their individual member countries. The FSRBs are responsible for promoting the effective implementation of the FATF Recommendations at the regional level, including by assisting member countries in identifying technical assistance needs and facilitating the provision of such assistance.

D. FATF and FSRBs are free-standing organizations that share the common goals of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation. The FATF is an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for AML/CFT and promotes their effective implementation, while the FSRBs are regional organizations that work to promote the effective implementation of the FATF Recommendations at the regional level.

---Wire transfers are one of the most common methods of moving funds across borders and jurisdictions, and therefore pose a high risk of violating OFAC sanctions. A bank’s OFAC sanctions screening audit program should include a test to review the wire transfer screening processes to ensure that potential name hits are investigated promptly and appropriately, and that any blocked or rejected transactions are reported to OFAC in a timely manner. This test would help the bank to assess the effectiveness of its screening system, identify any gaps or weaknesses, and demonstrate its compliance with OFAC regulations.

The anti-money laundering specialist should recommend a financial institution to investigate the source of funds, identify people and companies that are clearly related, and identify a person fully, including their political history, when dealing with individuals holding important public positions. These are essential steps to conduct enhanced due diligence based on public information, as they can help to assess the risk profile, the legitimacy, and the transparency of the customer relationship. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s list of public officials is not a reliable source of public information, as it is not comprehensive, updated, or verified. Therefore, it is not a sufficient criterion to check the background of potential customers.

The activity described in the question raises several red flags for money laundering, such as large and frequent cash deposits, transfers to offshore jurisdictions, and involvement of a charitable organization that could be a front for illicit funds. The Compliance Officer should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the competent authority, such as the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), as soon as possible, and provide all the relevant information and documentation to support the suspicion. Filing an STR is a legal obligation for financial institutions and does not require the consent or notification of the customer. The Compliance Officer should also follow the bank’s internal policies and procedures for handling such cases, which may include freezing the account, conducting further investigation, or escalating the matter to senior management.

Identity theft is a form of fraud or cheating of identity in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain. By compromising an individual's personal data, such as their Social Security Number, bank account numbers, or other personal information, a cybercriminal can use it to gain access to credit cards or other financial accounts, or to open new accounts in the victim's name.

Funds transfers are electronic payments that move money from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, countries, or currencies1. Funds transfers are commonly used for legitimate purposes, such as remittances, trade, or investment, but they can also be abused by money launderers, terrorists, or fraudsters to move illicit funds or conceal their origin or destination2. Therefore, financial institutions and other entities that offer funds transfer services are required to apply anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) measures, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting of suspicious activities2.

One of the red flags for funds transfers that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activity is when funds transfers are repeatedly sent to the same beneficiary out of line with the business purpose3. This could suggest that the originator and the beneficiary are colluding to layer or integrate illicit funds, or to evade reporting or sanctions requirements. For example, a business may send multiple funds transfers to the same supplier, but the amounts or frequencies do not match the invoices or contracts, or the supplier is located in a high-risk jurisdiction or is subject to sanctions. Alternatively, an individual may send frequent funds transfers to the same person, but the relationship or the reason for the transfers is unclear or inconsistent, or the person is associated with a criminal or terrorist organization. In such cases, the financial institution or the funds transfer service provider should conduct enhanced due diligence, verify the source and purpose of the funds, and report any suspicious activity to the relevant authorities.

Making payments via a company located in a jurisdiction that is known to have lax anti-money laundering controls is a sign of suspicious activity and should be reported. When making a payment of this nature, the insurance company should be aware of the client's source of funds and the possible risks associated with the transaction.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are characteristics of D. only involving two countries, E. cooperatively combating crime between countries, and F. being useful for gathering evidence and intelligence in a foreign country. MLATs are public and binding under international law (A), can be used for obtaining banking records from treaty partners (B), and provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence ©.

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 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic sanctions programs [1][2], which are designed to protect US national security, foreign policy, and economic interests. Transactions that would otherwise be prohibited can be allowed through an OFAC licensing process, in which the OFAC evaluates the request to determine that the transaction does not undermine US policy objectives.

According to the FATF Procedures for the Fourth Round of AML/CFT Mutual Evaluations1, jurisdictions that are determined to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing are subject to the FATF’s International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) process. The ICRG process involves the following actions for such jurisdictions:

Demonstrate a high-level commitment to swiftly resolve the identified deficiencies in the FATF mutual evaluation report. This commitment should be made in writing to the FATF President and should include an action plan with specific deadlines and milestones to address the deficiencies.

Report to FATF on the implementation of their progress under the enhanced follow-up mechanism. The FATF will monitor the progress of the jurisdiction through regular reports and on-site visits, and will decide whether the jurisdiction has made sufficient progress to exit the ICRG process or whether further actions are required, such as public statements, counter-measures, or suspension of membership.

The other options are not resulting actions for jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies, as they are either not part of the FATF procedures or not consistent with the FATF’s objectives and principles. For example, the FATF does not issue private statements regarding the level of compliance of a jurisdiction, nor does it allow a jurisdiction to appeal for a technical compliance re-rating based on its own criteria. The FATF also does not grant extensions of deadlines for jurisdictions to improve their regimes, as this would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the mutual evaluation process.

Internet gambling is an ideal web-based money laundering method because it allows criminals to move funds across borders quickly, anonymously, and with minimal oversight12. Internet gambling sites can facilitate the placement, layering, and integration stages of money laundering by accepting cash deposits, issuing virtual credits, allowing bets on various games, and paying out winnings through different payment methods12. Internet gambling also poses challenges for law enforcement and regulators, as it operates in a complex and dynamic environment that involves multiple jurisdictions, service providers, and technologies12.

The practice of brokerage firms maintaining securities as nominees and the speed of the transactions are two factors specific to the securities industry that increase the exposure to money laundering risk. Nominee accounts can be used to conceal beneficial ownership and obscure transaction trails. The speed of transactions can make it difficult to detect and prevent suspicious activity in real time.

Red flags in connection with a company involved in illegal logging include: D. Expeditious shipment of wood to far away jurisdictions, E. Use of heavy machinery in non-protected areas, and F. Executive's association with politically exposed persons. These red flags could be indicative of attempts to conceal the origin of illegally harvested wood and to avoid detection by government authorities.

The most concerning trading pattern for a compliance officer when a new customer has been onboarded in a securities firm is the customer accumulating securities of a low volume counter in small increments on a weekly basis. This type of behavior could indicate that the customer is attempting to obscure their identity or the true purpose of their trading activity, which can be indicative of money laundering or other suspicious activity. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 170).

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.

According to the FATF Recommendation 40, which sets the standards for international cooperation in relation to money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing, countries should ensure that exchanged information is used only for the purpose for which it was sought or provided, and that any dissemination or use of the information beyond the original scope is subject to prior authorization by the requested competent authority. Moreover, countries should have safeguards in place to ensure that the information exchanged is protected in a manner that is consistent with the way they protect their own information of a similar nature. One of the possible safeguards is to require the use of non-disclosure agreements or other legal instruments to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure of the exchanged information.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Study guide, the CCO should advise the manufacturing customer that increased scrutiny of cross-border transfers may lead to delays and caution them to ensure that all necessary documentation is provided in order to facilitate a timely transfer. Additionally, the CCO should recommend that the customer contact the FATF to discuss the possibility of an independent review of the findings, as well as other options to mitigate the potential negative consequences.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and monitors compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) measures. The FATF conducts periodic mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their level of implementation of the FATF Recommendations, which are the international AML/CFT standards. The FATF also identifies jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes that pose a risk to the international financial system, and places them on two public lists: the High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action (also known as the black list) and the Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring (also known as the grey list). The FATF works with these jurisdictions to address their deficiencies and monitors their progress through regular follow-up reports and on-site visits. The FATF may remove a jurisdiction from the list if it has made sufficient and sustainable progress in implementing the required reforms and has effectively addressed the identified strategic deficiencies. Therefore, receiving a favorable mutual evaluation is the most likely reason for the FATF to remove a jurisdiction from the list, as it indicates that the jurisdiction has met the FATF standards and has a robust AML/CFT system in place.

Conducting successful annual self-assessments, entering into a mutual legal assistance treaty, or joining the Wolfsberg Group are not sufficient reasons for the FATF to remove a jurisdiction from the list, as they do not necessarily reflect the overall compliance with the FATF Recommendations or the resolution of the strategic deficiencies. Moreover, the Wolfsberg Group is a private association of global banks that develops guidance and best practices for the financial sector on AML/CFT issues, and is not affiliated with the FATF.

 The FATF conducts peer reviews of each member on an ongoing basis to assess levels of implementation of the FATF Recommendations, providing an in-depth description and analysis of each country’s system for preventing criminal abuse of the financial system. The FATF Methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems sets out the evaluation process. Assessments focus on two areas, effectiveness and technical compliance. The effectiveness component will assess whether the AML/CFT systems are working, and the extent to which the country is achieving the defined set of outcomes. The technical compliance component will assess whether the necessary laws, regulations or other required measures are in force and effect, and whether the supporting AML/CFT institutional framework is in place.

The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the internationalfinancial system. The FATF conducts mutual evaluations of its members and other jurisdictions to assess their compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regimes1.

The FATF defines effectiveness as "the extent to which a country’s AML/CFT regime is achieving the defined outcomes of an effective regime that allows them to mitigate their risks and threats of ML/TF"2. The FATF assesses effectiveness based on 11 immediate outcomes, which are grouped into three thematic goals: financial system integrity, legal system and operational issues, and international cooperation2.

One of the immediate outcomes under the financial system integrity goal is that “FIs adequately apply preventive measures commensurate with their risks, and report suspicious transactions” (IO.4)2. This outcome measures how well FIs implement the FATF Recommendations on customer due diligence, record-keeping, internal controls, risk assessment, and suspicious transaction reporting. These preventive measures are essential for FIs to identify and mitigate the risks of being misused for money laundering or terrorist financing, and to provide useful information to the authorities for investigation and prosecution2.

Therefore, the correct answer is D. FIs adequately apply preventive measures, as this is one of the FATF characteristics used to assess a country’s effectiveness of its AML regime.

AML risk assessments are a key component of the risk-based approach to AML compliance, as required by the MLR 20171 and the FATF Recommendations2. AML risk assessments help FIs to identify, assess, and mitigate the money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face, taking into account their specific products, services, customers, and geographic locations. AML risk assessments also help FIs to allocate their resources and implement their AML policies and procedures in a proportionate and effective manner. AML risk assessments are not meant to be a one-off exercise, but rather an ongoing process that should be updated regularly to reflect changes in the FI’s risk profile and the external environment.

Microstructuring is a method of money laundering that involves breaking down large transactions into smaller amounts that are below the reporting threshold or the level of scrutiny of financial institutions. One of the red flags of microstructuring is frequent visits to make cash deposits of nominal amounts, as this may indicate an attempt to avoid detection and conceal the source or destination of illicit funds. Other red flags of microstructuring include checking accounts receiving cash deposits in amounts under $1,000 as infrequently as several times a month, followed by ATM withdrawals in foreign countries, or deposits that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or business activity.

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, banks should apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence, which means that they should adopt enhanced measures for higher-risk customers and simplified measures for lower-risk customers. Enhanced due diligence (EDD) may include obtaining additional information on the customer’s identity, source of funds, business activities, beneficial owners, and expected transactions, as well as conducting more frequent and intensive monitoring ofthe account activity. EDD is especially important for customers who are politically exposed persons (PEPs), who are from or have connections with high-risk countries or jurisdictions, or who are involved in high-risk industries or sectors. Therefore, performing EDD including enhanced ongoing monitoring of the account activity is the correct way for banks to deal with high-risk customers.

The USA PATRIOT Act stipulates that US banks that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign banks must keep identification records of foreign bank owners with 50% or more ownership in the bank. This ensures that the US government can track the flow of funds through the correspondent accounts and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Additionally, the US federal banking agency can require foreign banks to produce records or information related to any account opened in the US or other countries. This allows the agency to monitor the activities of foreign banks and ensure compliance with US regulations.

These options involve transferring funds to another country, which could indicate cross-border movement of illicit funds, and cashing out winnings in checks under 10,000 USD, which could indicate structuring to avoid reporting thresholds. The other options do not seem as suspicious or relevant to money laundering.

The bank’s current anti-money laundering program is inadequate because it does not include a process for monitoring customer account activity, which is a key component of detecting and reporting suspicious transactions. The fact that the consultant and the bank have mutual clients does not affect the risk rating of those customers, nor does it justify a lower level of scrutiny. The bank should revise its procedures to ensure that it has a comprehensive and risk-based approach to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and reporting.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the key elements of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is ongoing training for all relevant staff. Training should cover the legal and regulatory obligations, the risks and red flags of money laundering and terrorist financing, the procedures and controls for customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, the reporting and record-keeping requirements, and theroles and responsibilities of the staff and the management. Training should also be tailored to the specific functions and needs of the staff, and should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the AML environment and the FI’s policies and procedures.

PEPs are considered high-risk customers for AML purposes, as they may abuse their positions of power and influence to commit or facilitate corruption, bribery, embezzlement, or other financial crimes. Therefore, it is essential that the FI’s staff are aware of the definition and categories of PEPs, the sources and methods to identify and verify PEPs, the enhanced due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring that apply to PEPs, and the escalation and reporting procedures for suspicious activities involving PEPs .

If an internal audit reveals that a large group of employees do not know how to handle PEPs, this indicates a serious gap in the FI’s AML training program, which could expose the FI to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. Therefore, the next course of action that should be taken is to create a company-wide training program that covers the relevant aspects of PEPs, and to ensure that the training is delivered to all staff who deal with PEPs or have access to PEP-related information. The training should also be evaluated for its effectiveness and impact, and the results should be reported to the senior management and the board of directors.

According to the Basel Committee's principles on customer due diligence, banks must obtain the necessary information to establish the identity of their customers, beneficial owners, and any persons acting on behalf of their customers. This includes verifying the identity of the customer and the beneficial owners and assessing the customer's risk profile. Additionally, banks must conduct ongoing due diligence to ensure that the customer does not give rise to suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing [1].

An oil exploration company based in France does business with oil refineries in Iran, which is subject to comprehensive Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions. What type of OFAC sanctions should be imposed against the French company?

A. Sectoral

B. Country-based

C. Secondary

D. List-based

Answer: C

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.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Sixth Edition manual, elements that can trigger a review of the existing relationship during the opening of a new account include recent adverse media on the client (page 60) and incoming transfers from high-risk jurisdictions (page 61). The other elements listed, such as regular checks on the flow of funds, a false positive result for name screening, and an estimated total income decrease, are not triggers for a review.

According to the FATF Recommendations, financial institutions should maintain all necessary records on transactions and customers for at least five years, and make them available to competent authorities upon appropriate authority1. This includes records and documents related to suspicious transactions that have been reported to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) or other designated authorities. Providing the supporting documentation to competent authorities upon request is essential for the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and terrorist financing offences, as well as for the identification and tracing of criminal assets2.

Hinting to the customer that she should come in and explain her behavior is not a correct answer, as it may tip off the customer about the suspicion and compromise the effectiveness of the reporting system. Financial institutions should not disclose to the customer or to third parties that a suspicious transaction report (STR) or related information is being reported to the FIU3.

Maintaining adequate written documentation of all individuals and transactions reported is not a sufficient answer, as it does not imply cooperation with competent authorities. Financial institutions should not only keep records, but also provide them to the authorities when requested.

Submitting information upon receiving a legal request from parties involved in a civil lawsuit is not a relevant answer, as it does not relate to the cooperation with competent authorities for AML/CFT purposes. Civil lawsuits are not part of the AML/CFT framework, and financial institutions should not disclose confidential information to private parties without proper legal grounds.

The Egmont Group is a global network of 170 financial intelligence units (FIUs) that facilitate the exchange of information and cooperation among member FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12. FIUs are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligence to relevant authorities3. The Egmont Group supports the implementation of international standardsand best practices for FIUs, provides training and technical assistance, and promotes the development of secure and effective communication channels12.

Retail banks typically have a high inherent risk of money laundering due to their provision of cash services. This is because cash is a preferred medium of exchange for criminals and terrorists, and retail banks provide a convenient way for them to move large sums of money without detection. Retail banks are also vulnerable to money laundering through the use of false identities and other deceptive practices. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 8).

 the results of related audits and examinations are the most useful additional element to report to executive management on a regular basis. Audits and examinations are essential tools to assess the effectiveness and compliance of the anti-money laundering program across the organization. They can identify strengths, weaknesses, gaps, risks, and best practices in the program and provide recommendations for improvement. They can also help to monitor the implementation of corrective actions and remediation plans. Reporting the results of audits and examinations can help executive management to oversee the performance of the program, ensure accountability, and demonstrate commitment to the anti-money laundering objectives12

 This is a red flag of money laundering or terrorist financing that involves the use of non-profit organizations (NPOs) as conduits for illicit funds. NPOs may be vulnerable to abuse by criminals who exploit their legitimate activities, reputation, and access to funds and resources. A transaction monitoring process that would alert a bank for this red flag activity is to analyze the source, destination, frequency, and purpose of the funds transferred to and from the charity account, and to compare them with the expected profile and activity of the NPO. If the bank detects any inconsistency, discrepancy, or deviation from the norm, it should raise an alert and conduct further investigation.

The individual responsible for setting the anti-money laundering software parameters should recommend ensuring that the alert parameters are based on risk, rather than on default software rules. This means that the software should be configured to generate alerts only when transactions or customers exhibit a high level of risk, based on factors such as the source and destination of funds, the amount and frequency of transactions, the type and purpose of the account, the customer profile and behavior, and the presence of any red flags or indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing. By aligning the alert parameters with the risk assessment of the financial institution, the software can reduce the number of false positives and focus on the most relevant and suspicious cases, thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the anti-money laundering staff.

Broker-dealers cannot have correspondent accounts with a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. The USA PATRIOT Act has an extraterritorial effect in that it prohibits broker-dealers from having correspondent accounts with foreign banks that do not have a physical presence in any country. This rule is designed to help prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by making it more difficult for funds to be moved to or through jurisdictions with less stringent anti-money laundering laws.

Using self-hosted wallets, or wallets that are stored on the user’s computer, is one of the tactics that may be used to finance terrorism with virtual assets such as Bitcoin. By creating many different donation addresses that are updated continuously, law enforcement will have a harder time tracing transactions. It is also important to note that using the same donation address across multiple donation campaigns and media types, as well as forming relationships with virtual asset service providers that have strong KYC processes in place, can draw attention from law enforcement and should be avoided.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations are the international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and they apply to all countries and financial institutions. The Customer Due Diligence for Banks issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides guidance on how banks should conduct CDD and KYC procedures, and how they should manage the risks of correspondent banking and wire transfers. The Egmont Group Statement of Purpose outlines the objectives and functions of the Egmont Group, which is an international network of financial intelligence units (FIUs) that exchange information and cooperate in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. These three materials are relevant and useful for the bank’s expansion plans, as they cover the main aspects of AML/CFT compliance in different jurisdictions and sectors.

The USA PATRIOT Act is a US-specific legislation that enhances the powers and obligations of US authorities and financial institutions in relation to AML/CFT, but it may not be applicable or appropriate for other countries where the bank intends to operate. Therefore, it is not a necessary reference material for the bank’s international department.

Structured transactions are a common method of money laundering, where large amounts of cash are broken down into smaller deposits or withdrawals to avoid reporting thresholds or detection. The most effective tool to detect such transactions is a software program that can link apparently unrelated transactions by using various criteria, such as customer name, address, account number, identification number, transaction amount, date, time, location, etc. Such a program can help identify patterns, trends, and anomalies that may indicate money laundering activity.

The risk-based approach (RBA) is an essential foundation of the FATF Recommendations, as it allows countries, competent authorities and financial institutions to adopt a more flexible set of measures to target their resources more effectively and apply preventive measures that are commensurate to the nature of risks, in order to focus their efforts in the most effective way. The RBA is not optional, but a prerequisite for the effective implementation of the FATF Standards. The RBA requires the identification, assessment and understanding of the ML/TF risks to which the countries and FIs are exposed, and the implementation of AML/CFT measures that are proportionate and tailored to those risks. The RBA is not a “zero failure” approach, but a way to mitigate the risks in the most efficient and effective manner.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, ongoing training is a key element of an effective anti-money laundering compliance program, as it ensures that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the latest regulatory developments, and the emerging risks and trends in money laundering and terrorist financing1. Ongoing training also helps to foster a culture of compliance within the institution, where the staff are committed to adhering to the policies and procedures, detecting and reporting suspicious activities, and protecting the institution from reputational and legal damages2.

 The anti-money laundering officer (AML officer) is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the anti-money laundering (AML) program of a financial institution. The AML officer should have sufficient authority, independence, and access to resources to perform this role. Reporting to the Sales Director may compromise the independence and objectivity of the AML officer, as the Sales Director may have conflicting interests or incentives that could influence the AML officer’s decisions or actions. The AML officer should report to a senior management level that is independent of business functions and has direct access to the board of directors or a relevant committee. This would ensure that the AML officer can communicate any AML issues orconcerns to the board without any interference or undue influence from the business functions.

This is a common red flag of money laundering that involves layering, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to conceal their origin and ownership. Layering often involves cross-border transfers, especially to high-risk jurisdictions, and rapid movement of funds to avoid detection or tracing. A compliance officer should prioritize this red flag for investigation, as it may indicate a complex money laundering scheme or the financing of terrorism or proliferation.

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate information on suspicious or unusual financial activity, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, to relevant authorities. One of their main functions is to disseminate the results of their analysis to law enforcement agencies in a timely manner, so that they can initiate investigations or prosecutions. This is also one of the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body that sets the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) policies and recommendations. The other options are not the primary responsibilities of FIUs, although they may perform them as part of their mandate or in cooperation with other agencies.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a department of the U.S. Treasury that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC regulations cover all persons and entities within the U.S., all U.S.-domiciled entities and their foreign branches, and all U.S. citizens, wherever located or employed2. These include U.S. banks, U.S. corporations, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, U.S. residents, and U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad3. OFAC regulations do not cover foreign-based entities that have U.S. customers, unless they are owned or controlled by U.S. persons or entities4.

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 191, “Reloadable open-loop prepaid cards are a high-risk product for money laundering because they can be used to store and move large amounts of funds anonymously. They can also be used to access cash at ATMs or through cash-back transactions at merchants.” Therefore, option B is a red flag that may indicate money laundering, as a non-bank customer who regularly loads large amounts of cash onto several prepaid cards may be trying to avoid identification, verification, or transaction reporting requirements.

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement inquiry, it should cooperate as much as possible and respond to all formal requests for information, unless there is a valid objection that can and should be made1. The institution should also file a suspicious transaction report (STR) if the inquiry or the customer’s activity triggers any red flags or indicators of money laundering or other financial crimes2. Additionally, the institution should monitor the account for suspicious activity and review the money laundering risk posed by the account, as these are part of the ongoing due diligence and risk assessment processes3. Closing the account immediately is not a recommended action, as it may alert the customer or interfere with the investigation4.

these are the main factors that determine the inherent money laundering risk of a financial institution. The customer base, location, products and services of a financial institution affect the type, volume, and complexity of transactions that it processes, as well as the exposure to high-risk customers, jurisdictions, and activities12. A financial institution should review these factors regularly and conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to identify, measure, and mitigate its money laundering risk34.

A compliance officer should cooperate with the law enforcement inquiry as much as possible, but also ensure that the request is valid, lawful, and does not violate any confidentiality or privacy obligations. Therefore, the compliance officer should collaboratewith the FI’s designated department, such as the legal counsel, the senior management, or the board of directors, to determine the appropriate course of action to comply withthe request12. The compliance officer should also ensure that all communication, written and oral, is funneled through a centralized place, and that the FI maintains a record of the request and the response12.

The Wolfsberg Principles for Private Banking are a set of guidelines for private banking relationships that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners in certain circumstances that may indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Among the options given, A, B, and C are the correct choices that reflect the circumstances listed in the Principles.

Foreign jurisdictions are countries or territories other than the one where the bank operates or where the client or beneficial owner resides. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to foreign jurisdictions, especially those that have weak or inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or that are subject to sanctions, embargoes, or similar measures.

High Risk Countries are countries or territories that are identified by credible sources, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), as having inadequate anti-money laundering standards, or as being a source, transit, or destination of illicit funds. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are connected to high risk countries, and apply enhanced measures to mitigate the risks.

High Risk activities are activities that involve clients and beneficial owners whose source of wealth or funds originates from sectors or industries that are known to be vulnerable to money laundering, such as cash-intensive businesses, gambling, arms trade, precious metals and stones, or art and antiquities. The Principles state that the bank should conduct additional due diligence on clients and beneficial owners who are engaged in high risk activities, and verify the legitimacy and origin of their wealth and funds.

Implementing a sound customer due diligence (CDD) program is the most effective way to prevent money laundering through financial institutions, according to experts. CDD is the process of identifying and verifying the identity of customers and assessing their risk profile, source of funds, and expected activity. CDD helps financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering by enabling them to know their customers, monitor their transactions, and report any suspicious or unusual behavior. CDD is also a key requirement of the international standards and best practices for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT), such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Guidelines.

The other options are not as effective as CDD, as they are either too narrow or too broad in scope. Ensuring that transaction monitoring systems can identify terrorist financing is important, but it does not address the broader issue of money laundering, which may involve other types of criminal proceeds or activities. Collecting information on beneficial owners and foreign customers is a part of CDD, but it is not sufficient by itself, as it does not cover the risk assessment and ongoing monitoring aspects of CDD. Instituting a policy prohibiting the acceptance of funds intended for terrorist financing is a good practice, but it is not a preventive measure, as it relies on the assumption that the funds are already identified as such, which may not be the case.

 The compliance officer should provide a high level summary of the activity and the interactions with law enforcement to the board of directors, as this would be the most appropriate way to escalate the information without compromising the confidentiality of the STR or the ongoing investigation. Providing a copy of the STR or the letter from law enforcement could expose the bank to legal risks or jeopardize the investigation. Informing the regulator to bring it up with the board would not be sufficient, as the compliance officer has the responsibility to report directly to the board on significant compliance issues.

 MLROs are responsible for implementing and enforcing an appropriate risk-based approach for their firm, ensuring compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, and reporting any suspicious activities to the authorities. If they fail to discharge their duties, they may face personal liability and civil or criminal sanctions. MLROs are not the only individuals that can be held responsible for AML program deficiencies, as other seniormanagers, directors, or partners may also be liable depending on their role and involvement. However, MLROs are often the primary focus of enforcement actions due to their specific responsibilities and obligations. MLROs cannot avoid liability by agreeing to a civil penalty, as this does not absolve them from their legal duties or potential criminal prosecution. Banks can also be found liable for AML program deficiencies and face fines, penalties, or other sanctions.

The USA PATRIOT Act is a comprehensive legislation that was enacted in 2001 to enhance the powers and tools of the US authorities to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other threats to the national security and the integrity of the financial system. The USA PATRIOT Act contains several provisions that affect the relationship between US banks and foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts in the US.

One of these provisions is Section 319, which allows the US authorities to seize the funds of a foreign bank held with a US bank, if the foreign bank refuses to comply with a subpoena or a request for records related to the correspondent account. This provision is intended to prevent foreign banks from using their correspondent accounts in the US to facilitate transactions involving tainted funds, such as proceeds of crime, funds intended to support terrorism, or funds subject to sanctions or asset freezing orders. Section 319 also requires US banks to maintain records of the owners and agents of foreign banks that have correspondent accounts with them, and to terminate such accounts if requested by the US authorities.

Therefore, if a foreign bank maintains a correspondent account in the US, and the US authorities find out that the account has been used to facilitate a transaction involving tainted funds, the US authorities can seize the funds of the foreign bank held with the US bank, under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the situation that is the highest risk for money laundering and terrorist financing activity is A. A customer purchases casino chips, using small denomination bank notes, but does not engage in game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check. This is because this situation may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:

Using small denomination bank notes, which may be an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the casino or the authorities, as large amounts of cash are usually associated with criminal activity1.

Not engaging in game play, which may indicate a lack of interest in gambling and a sole purpose of exchanging cash for a casino check, which is a more legitimate and less traceable form of payment2.

Redeeming the chips for a casino check, which may be a way of laundering the cash through the casino, as the check can be deposited into a bank account or cashed at another location, without revealing the source of the funds3.

The other three options are less risky because:

B. A customer purchases casino chips and engages in significant game play before requesting a casino check for the remainder is less risky, as it may indicate a genuine interest in gambling and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use gambling as a cover for their illicit activities, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person4.

C. A customer purchases casino chips using a credit card and engages in minimal game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a low level of funds involved and a traceable source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit cards to obtain cash advances from the casino, or may use the casino check as a way of repaying their credit card debt or transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

D. A customer purchases casino chips using credit from an account at an affiliated casino and engages in significant game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a regular and loyal customer of the casino and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit from an affiliated casino to avoid carrying cash or using credit cards, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

According to the FATF 40 recommendations, the focus of AML efforts has been expanded beyond financial institutions to include other businesses and professions that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. These include:

Casinos, when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold. Casinos are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers, keeprecords of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The designated threshold is USD/EUR 3,000 or more1.

Real estate agents, when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties. Real estate agents are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Real estate transactions can involve large amounts of money and complex legal arrangements that can be used to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds2.

Trust and company service providers, when they prepare for or carry out transactions for a client concerning the creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements. Trust and company service providers are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Trust and company service providers can facilitate the misuse of legal persons or arrangements, such as shell companies or trusts, to hide the true ownership and control of assets or funds3.

The other option, dealers in art, when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold, is not covered by the FATF 40 recommendations. However, dealers in precious metals and stones are covered when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold of USD/EUR 15,000 or more. Dealers in art may be subject to national or regional regulations that impose AML obligations on them, depending on the jurisdiction.

 The FATF is an inter-governmental body that sets standards and promotes effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system1. The FATF identifies jurisdictions with serious strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering / counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes and issues public statements to warn the international community of the risks emanating from these jurisdictions2. These jurisdictions are also known as high-risk jurisdictions subject to a call for action, or the “black list” in external sources2. The FATF urges its members and all other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures to protect themselves from the money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed by these jurisdictions2. Counter-measures are enhanced due diligence or restrictive measures that go beyond the normal AML/CFT requirements, such as requiring additional information or documentation, rejecting transactions, restricting business relationships, or terminating correspondent banking relationships3. The FATF also provides guidance on the types and levels of counter-measures that may be appropriate, depending on the specific risks and circumstances of each jurisdiction3.

OFAC-issued regulations apply to all U.S. persons, including U.S. banks, bank holding companies, and non-bank subsidiaries, regardless of where they are located. This means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks and U.S. branches of a foreign bank are also subject to OFAC compliance. However, intermediaries transacting with U.S. banks, foreign banks with U.S. customers, and foreign import-export companies are not necessarily subject to OFAC regulations, unless they are involved in transactions that involve U.S. jurisdiction or U.S. persons.

 A key risk indicator associated with terrorism financing is the link between the charity group and a known terrorist group. This indicates that the funds transferred to the charity group may be used to support the terrorist group’s activities, such as recruitment, training, propaganda, or attacks. Charities are often vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers, as they may operate in high-risk areas, have access to large amounts of cash, and enjoy public trust and legitimacy. Therefore, financial institutions (FIs) should conduct due diligence on the charity group, its directors, its beneficiaries, and its sources and uses of funds, and monitor the transactions for any red flags, such as unusual patterns, amounts, or destinations. FIs should also comply with the relevant sanctions and regulatory requirements, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the authorities.

An enterprise-wide compliance culture is a centralized, coordinated approach to ethics and compliance program design and assessment that cuts across multiple business units within an organization1. One key aspect of promoting such a culture is that the relevant information should be shared throughout the organization, so that all employees are aware of the compliance risks, policies, procedures, and expectations, and can act accordingly2. Sharing information also facilitates collaboration, communication, and feedback among different functions and levels of the organization, and helps identify and address any gaps or issues in the compliance program3. By contrast, the other options are not conducive to an enterprise-wide compliance culture, as they either create silos, conflicts, or inefficiencies in the compliance function.

A financial institution should examine the country or location where the customer is from or does business, the type and size of the business the customer runs, and the legal structure of the customer’s business, because these factors can indicate the level ofmoney laundering risk associated with the customer. For example, some countries or locations may have weak anti-money laundering laws or high levels of corruption, some types or sizes of businesses may be more prone to generating or concealing illicit funds, and some legal structures may be more complex or opaque than others, making it harder to identify the beneficial owners or controllers of the customer.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that facilitates and prompts the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences1. The Egmont Group suggests that one of the core objectives that would lead to an effective national FIU is to have absolute trust amongst national and international stakeholders before sensitive information will be exchanged with confidence2. This means that the FIU should establish and maintain a high level of credibility, professionalism, and integrity in its operations, and ensure that the information it receives and disseminates is protected and used appropriately. The FIU should also comply with the Egmont Group’s principlesand standards for information exchange, and foster a culture of mutual trust and cooperation with other FIUs and relevant authorities3.

The other three options are incorrect because:

The FIU must operate from physically separated premises from other law enforcement agencies and government offices is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and be free from undue influence or interference, it does not necessarily have to be physically separated from other agencies or offices. The FIU may be located within the judicial, law enforcement, administrative, or hybrid model, depending on the country’s legal and institutional framework4.

The FIU meets the Egmont Group assessment criteria is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While meeting the Egmont Group assessment criteria is a requirement for becoming and remaining a member of the Egmont Group, it is not an objective in itself. The assessment criteria are based on the FATF recommendations and the Egmont Group’s own documents, and they serve as a benchmark for evaluating the FIU’s compliance and effectiveness5.

The FIU must be able to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU may contribute to the prevention and detection of corruption, as well as the recovery of illicit assets, by analyzing and sharing financial intelligence, it is not the sole or primary responsibility of the FIU to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country. This is a broader and more complex goal that involves multiple actors and factors, such as political will, legal framework, institutional capacity, civil society, media, and international cooperation.

As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called "Specially Designated Nationals" or "SDNs." Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. So it's covering all

account opening documents and account statements are examples of supporting documentation that can help the law enforcement agency to verify the identity, profile, and activity of the customer involved in the suspicious transaction. These documents can provide useful information such as the customer’s name, address, date of birth, identification number, occupation, source of funds, transaction history, and beneficiaries. These documents can also help to establish the baseline of normal and expected activity for the customer, and to identify any deviations or anomalies that may indicate money laundering, fraud, or other criminal activities.

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001, is a comprehensive legislation that aims to enhance the US government’s ability to combat terrorism, money laundering, and other criminal activities. One of the aspects of the Act that has extraterritorial reach is the requirement for US financial institutions (FIs) to apply certain due diligence and reporting obligations to their correspondent accounts and private banking accounts for foreign FIs and non-US persons, respectively12. These obligations are intended to prevent foreign FIs and individuals from using the US financial system to facilitate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose special measures, such as recordkeeping, reporting, or prohibitions, on certain foreign jurisdictions, FIs, or transactions that are found to be of primary money laundering concern34. These special measures can have significant impact on the access and operations of foreign FIs and persons in the US financial market.

having an outdated and incomplete risk assessment could expose the financial institution to significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks that are not identified, measured, or mitigated. The risk assessment is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering program, and it should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the business environment, customer profile, product offerings, delivery channels, and regulatory requirements12. A risk assessment that is several years old and does not cover all current products and services could fail to capture the emerging threats and vulnerabilities that the financial institution faces, and could result in inadequate or inappropriate controls, policies, and procedures. This could lead to the highest potential for unmitigated risk, as the financial institution could be exploited by money launderers and terrorist financiers, and face regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and financial losses.

 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.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, electronic funds transfers (EFTs) are transactions that involve the movement of funds electronically from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, domestically or internationally1. EFTs can be used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating trade, commerce, and remittances, but they can also beexploited by money launderers to conceal the origin, ownership, and destination of illicit funds2. Some of the indicators of money laundering associated with using EFTs are:

Funds transfers to or from a financial secrecy haven without an apparent business reason. Financial secrecy havens are jurisdictions that offer a high degree of banking secrecy, low or no taxes, lax regulation and supervision, and weak or non-existent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures3. Money launderers may use these havens to hide their illicit funds, evade taxes, and avoid scrutiny from authorities. Funds transfers to or from these havens without a clear or plausible explanation may indicate an attempt to launder money or finance terrorism.

Funds transfers are received or sent from the same person to or from different accounts. This may indicate a layering technique, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts, institutions, or jurisdictions to obscure the audit trail and the source and ownership ofthe funds4. Money launderers may use this technique to avoid detection, reporting, or freezing of their funds by authorities or financial institutions.

Payment or receipts with no apparent link to legitimate contracts, goods or services. This may indicate a trade-based money laundering technique, which is the process of using trade transactions to disguise the movement of illicit funds, either by over- or under-invoicing, misrepresenting the quantity or quality of goods, or falsifying documents. Money launderers may use this technique to transfer value across borders, evade taxes or customs duties, or justify the movement of funds that have no legitimate origin or purpose.

The other option is incorrect because:

Regular and frequent transfers from the account of a large company said to be payment for goods bought on credit is not necessarily an indicator of money laundering associated with using EFTs. This may be a normal business practice for some companies that have a high volume of transactions or a long-term relationship with their suppliers or customers. However, this may also be a red flag if the company is not well-known, has no physical presence, has no apparent business activity, or is located in a high-risk jurisdiction. Therefore, this option requires further investigation and verification before concluding that it is an indicator of money laundering.

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a method to finance terrorism that involves falsifying transaction-related documents, such as invoices, contracts, bills of lading, or customs declarations, to conceal the origin, destination, value, or purpose of illicit funds. TBML can be used to move money, goods, or services to or from sanctioned orhigh-risk jurisdictions, to evade taxes, duties, or currency controls, to launder proceeds of crime, or to support terrorist activities. TBML can involve over- or under-invoicing, over- or under-shipping, multiple-invoicing, or falsely describing goods or services. TBML can also be linked to other methods of money laundering or terrorist financing, such as bribery, black market peso exchange, or informal value transfer systems.

Economic sanctions are penalties imposed by one or more countries against another country, group, or individual for violatinginternational norms or threatening national interests1. The ultimate goal of economic sanctions is to protect national security by changing the behavior or policies of the target, or by weakening its capabilities or resources2. Sanctions can be used to advance various foreignpolicy objectives, such as counterterrorism, nonproliferation, democracy promotion, human rights protection, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity1. Sanctions can take different forms, such as travel bans, asset freezes, trade embargoes, arms restrictions, and aid reductions1. Sanctions can be applied unilaterally by one country, or multilaterally by a coalition of countries or an international organization, such as the United Nations or the European Union1.

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.

By delivering the same annual refresher training to all employees, the compliance officer could miss the opportunity to update the staff on any new trends, developments, or risks that have emerged in the anti-money laundering field. For example, new typologies, indicators, technologies, or best practices could be relevant for the staff to be aware of and apply in their daily work. Moreover, the compliance officer could also miss the chance to share any links to enforcement actions identifying violations in other financial institutions that could serve as lessons learned or case studies for the staff to avoid similar mistakes or gaps in their compliance program.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body that sets the global standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF). The FATF also monitors the compliance and implementation of its recommendations by its members and other jurisdictions. To enhance its global reach and effectiveness, the FATF works with nine FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) that cover different regions of the world. These FSRBs have similar objectives and functions as the FATF, but they also take into account the specific characteristics and challenges of their regions. Two ways that FSRBs influence AML/CTF standards within their respective regions are:

They issue typologies specific to their geographical region. Typologies are reports or studies that analyze the methods, trends, and patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing in a particular sector, industry, or region. FSRBs produce typologies that reflect the regional context and risks of their members and provide guidance and best practices to address them. For example, the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) has issued typologies on trade-based money laundering, wildlife trafficking, and virtual assets in the Asia-Pacific region12.

They administer mutual evaluations of participating members. Mutual evaluations are peer reviews that assess the level of compliance and effectiveness of a country’s AML/CTF system against the FATF standards. FSRBs conduct mutual evaluations of their members and publish the results and recommendations in detailed reports. These reports help identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CTF regime and provide a basis for follow-up actions and technical assistance. For example, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) hasconducted mutual evaluations of its members such as Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago34.

According to the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, which is a network of over 160 FIUs that promotes international cooperation and information exchange, FIUs should share information with foreign FIUs spontaneously, without prior request, when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information is relevant for the receiving FIU1. This principle is also reflected in the FATF Recommendation 40, which states that FIUs should exchange information with other FIUs, especially when this information concerns money laundering, predicate offences, or terrorist financing2. Spontaneous information sharing can enhance the effectiveness of FIUs, as it can help to identify new leads, trends, patterns, or typologies, as well as to prevent or disrupt criminal activities1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of FIU information sharing. For example:

In accordance with Wolfsberg guidelines, submit the information to the other FIU in written form. The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that issues guidance and standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. However, the Wolfsberg guidelines are not binding for FIUs, and they do not specify the format or channel of informationexchange between FIUs3. Moreover, submitting information in written form may not be the most efficient or secure way of communication, as it may cause delays, errors, or breaches of confidentiality.

Take no action until contacted by the other FIU. This option contradicts the principle of spontaneous information sharing, as it implies that the FIU with the relevant information will wait for a formal request from the other FIU, instead of proactively sharing the information. This may result in missed opportunities, inefficiencies, or failures in detecting or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

Request approval from the Egmont Group prior to sharing the information with the other FIU. This option is unnecessary and impractical, as the Egmont Group does not have the authority or the capacity to approve or deny individual information requests or exchanges between FIUs. The Egmont Group provides a platform and a framework for FIU cooperation, but it does not interfere with the operational autonomy or the bilateral relations of its members4.

International wire transfers are considered to be of highest money laundering risk because they can facilitate the rapid and anonymous movement of funds across borders and jurisdictions, making it difficult for law enforcement and regulators to trace the origin and destination of the funds, and to identify the beneficial owners and controllers of the accounts involved. International wire transfers can also be used to layer and integrate illicit proceeds into the legitimate financial system, by disguising the source, ownership, and purpose of the funds. International wire transfers can involve multiple intermediaries, complex payment chains, and inconsistent or incomplete information, whichcan increase the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, international wire transfers are subject to enhanced due diligence, record-keeping, and reporting requirements under various anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) regulations and standards, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations1, the European Union (EU) Funds Transfer Regulation2, and the United States (US) Bank Secrecy Act3.

A fundraising organization is a type of non-profit organization that may be vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as they often operate in high-risk areas, deal with large amounts of cash, and have complex and opaque structures. Therefore, a fundraising organization warrants enhanced due diligence, which is a higher level of customer verification and monitoring that goes beyond the standard customer due diligence measures. Enhanced due diligence may include obtaining additional information on the source of funds, the purpose of the relationship, the beneficiaries, and the governance of the organization.

According to the FFIEC BSA/AML Manual1, a U.S. bank should have policies, procedures, and processes to monitor and report suspicious activity associated with U.S. dollar drafts, which are bank drafts or checks denominated in U.S. dollars and made available at foreign financial institutions. These drafts are drawn on a U.S. correspondent account by a foreign financial institution and can be used to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing. The manual states that "[t]he potential for facilitating money laundering or terrorist financing, OFAC violations, and other serious crimes increases when a U.S. bank is unable to identify and adequately understand the transactions of the ultimate users (all or most of whom are outside of the United States) of its account with a foreign correspondent."2 Therefore, the compliance officer should notify Foreign Bank A of the discovery and seek documentation supporting Foreign Bank A was collusive and a willing partner with Foreign Bank B in the activity, as this would indicate a breach of the correspondent banking agreement and a possible violation of U.S. laws and regulations. The compliance officer should also document the findings and actions taken, and escalate the matter to senior management and the board of directors as appropriate.

The other options are not the best steps for the compliance officer to take. Option A is not relevant, as the issue is not related to tax evasion, but to money laundering or terrorist financing. Option B is premature, as the compliance officer should first verify the nature and extent of the suspicious activity and the involvement of Foreign Bank A before deciding whether to terminate or restrict the correspondent relationship. Option D is not feasible, as the compliance officer does not have the authority or the means to notify other U.S. financial institutions who maintain U.S. dollar correspondent accounts forForeign Bank A and Foreign Bank B, and this could also interfere with ongoing investigations or law enforcement actions.

Wash trading is the term for trading through multiple accounts, where an individual generates offsetting profits and losses and transfers of positions through accounts that do not appear to be commonly controlled. Wash trading is a form of market manipulationthat creates artificial trading activity and volume, and may be used to evade taxes, inflate prices, or launder money. Wash trading can also involve the use of third parties or intermediaries to conceal the true identity and source of funds of the trader.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the best practices for hiring an AML officer is to do a thorough background check, including verifying the candidate’s credentials, qualifications, references, and reputation1. This is because the AML officer plays a crucial role in ensuring the compliance and integrity of the financial institution, and therefore must have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience, and ethics to perform the job effectively and professionally. A background check can also help to identify any potential conflicts of interest, criminal records, or regulatory sanctions that may affect the candidate’s suitability for the position1. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Confering with the regulatory agency may not be necessary or appropriate, as the hiring decision is ultimately the responsibility of the financial institution, and the regulatory agency may not have any specific or relevant information or guidance on the candidate2.

C. Hiring the individual, relying on the recommendation of the correspondent, may not be sufficient or prudent, as the correspondent may have different standards, expectations, or interests than the financial institution, and may not have conducted a comprehensive or objective assessment of the candidate3.

D. Hiring the individual on a probationary basis may not be feasible or fair, as the AML officer role requires a high level of trust, authority, and responsibility, and the financial institution may not be able to evaluate the candidate’s performance or potential in a short period of time4.

High-risk: The risks here are significant, but are not necessarily prohibited. To mitigate the heightened risk presented, the financial institution should apply more stringent controls to reduce the ML/FT risk, such as conducting enhanced due diligence and more rigorous transaction monitoring. Countries that maintain a reputation for corruption or drug trafficking are generally considered high-risk. High-risk customers may include politically exposed persons (PEPs) or certain types of money services businesses orcash-intensive businesses; high-risk products and services may include correspondent banking and private banking.

The following were the key features of the Second Directive:

• It extended the scope of the First Directive beyond drug-related crimes. The definition of “criminal activity” was expanded to cover not just drug trafficking, but all serious crimes, including corruption and fraud against the financial interests of the European community.

• It explicitly brought bureaux de change and money remittance offices under AML coverage.

• It clarified that knowledge of criminal conduct can be inferred from objective factual circumstances.

shell banks are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with any regulated financial institution. They are often used by money launderers and terrorist financiers to hide their illicit activities and evade regulatory oversight. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits US financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts with shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their foreign correspondent banks do not provide services to shell banks12. Therefore, the US does not have jurisdiction over shell banks operating in foreign jurisdictions, unless they are involved in transactions that violate US laws or sanctions.

Shell companies are business entities that exist only on paper, with no physical presence, no employees, and no operations. They are often used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating mergers and acquisitions, protecting assets, or managing investments. However, they are also frequently exploited for illegal activities, such as tax evasion and money laundering, due to their ability to obscure ownership and financial transactions12. Money launderers can use shell companies to disguise the origin of illicit funds, evade sanctions, and avoid the anti-money laundering (AML) measures that financial institutions use to detect suspicious activity23. The process typically involves setting up a shell company in a jurisdiction known for strict privacy laws, such as a tax haven, and then using it to move and hide illicit funds while hiding the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries13.

In this scenario, the fact that the company has been a client for many years does not rule out the possibility of money laundering. The company could have changed its ownership, activities, or risk profile over time, or it could have been involved in money laundering all along without being detected. The fact that the company has added several new subsidiaries that are recently created shell companies is a red flag that indicates potential money laundering. The company could be using the shell companies to hide the source and destination of its funds, or to conceal the identity of its beneficial owners. The institution should perform enhanced due diligence on the company and its subsidiaries, and report any suspicious transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

The primary international authoritative body that designates sanctions is the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. The UN sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states and aim to maintain or restore international peace and security. The UN sanctions can target individuals, entities, groups, sectors, or countries, and can include measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, trade restrictions, or diplomatic isolation. The UN sanctions are implemented and enforced by the member states, with the assistance of the UN Secretariat and other specialized agencies. The UN sanctions are periodically reviewed and adjusted by the Security Council, based on the reports of the sanctions committees and expert panels.

Before sharing customer records within the same jurisdiction, an FI should consider the legal and regulatory framework that governs the protection of personal data and the disclosure of client information. Different jurisdictions may have different laws and rules regarding the privacy and confidentiality of customer data, the consent and notification requirements for data sharing, the purposes and scope of data sharing, and the safeguards and accountability measures for data protection. An FI should ensure that it complies with the applicable restrictions and obligations when sharing customer records within the same jurisdiction, and that it does not violate the rights and expectations of its customers.

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, FSRBs are regional organizations that help the FATF implement its global AML/CFT policy and standards in over 200 affiliated countries1. FSRBs have their own high-level principles and objectives that govern their relationship with the FATF and their members2. Among these principles and objectives, two that should be included in a FSRB update are:

Issue country-specific Mutual Evaluation reports. This is the process by which FSRBs assess the compliance and effectiveness of their members’ AML/CFT systems, based on the FATF standards and methodology3. Mutual Evaluation reports provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each jurisdiction, as well as recommendations for improvement4.

Identify jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT regimes. This is the process by which FSRBs, in coordination with the FATF, monitor and publicly list the countries that pose a risk to the international financial system due to their strategic deficiencies in AML/CFT. This process aims to encourage and assist these jurisdictions to address their gaps and enhance their cooperation with the global network.

The other three options are incorrect because:

Address AML/CFT technical assistance of individual members is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a core function of FSRBs. FSRBs may facilitate or coordinate technical assistance, but they are not the primary providers or funders of such assistance.

Establish AML/CFT standards and typologies is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a role of FSRBs. FSRBs are expected to adopt and implement the FATF standards, not to create their own. Typologies are the methods and trends of money laundering and terrorist financing, which are identified and analyzed by the FATF and FSRBs through research and workshops.

Protect the reputation and standing of FATF is not a principle that should be included in a FSRB update, as it is not a responsibility of FSRBs. FSRBs are autonomous and independent organizations that have their own governance and accountability mechanisms. FSRBs are expected to cooperate and coordinate with the FATF, but not to act as its agents or representatives.

a qualified compliance officer is a mandatory element of all anti-money laundering programs, regardless of the type or size of the financial institution. The compliance officer is responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing the anti-money laundering program, ensuring its compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, and reporting any suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities12. The compliance officer should have sufficient authority, resources, and expertise to perform these duties effectively.

 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.

According to the CAMS Study Guide, page 173, “If an independent investigation provides grounds to interview the employee, the employee can be interviewed and, if necessary, terminated, but not advised that he or she is under investigation by law enforcement.” This is because informing the employee of the law enforcement investigation could compromise the integrity of the case and potentially expose the institution to legal liability. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

The compliance officer should perform the first step of reviewing the institution’s risk assessment before implementing any changes to the customer onboarding program. The risk assessment is a key component of the AML compliance program, as it identifies and measures the institution’s exposure to money laundering and terrorist financingrisks. The risk assessment should be updated regularly and reflect the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, and delivery channels. By reviewing the risk assessment, the compliance officer can determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the current customer onboarding program and identify any gaps or weaknesses that need to be addressed. The compliance officer can also benchmark the institution’s risk assessment against the regulatory expectations and best practices in the industry.

The other steps are also important, but they should be performed after the risk assessment review. Revising training materials for frontline staff, conducting enhanced due diligence on high risk customers, and resolving substantive discrepancies in customer verification are all part of the customer onboarding program, but they depend on the risk assessment to provide the appropriate level of controls and procedures. For example, the training materials should reflect the risk assessment results and the revised customer onboarding policies. The enhanced due diligence should be applied to customers who pose a higher risk according to the risk assessment criteria. The customer verification should be consistent with the risk assessment and the customer identification program.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, when a financial institution receives a law enforcement request to keep an account open that may be associated with suspicious or criminal activity, it should take the following two steps:

Maintain account records for at least five years after the request expires. This is to ensure that the financial institution can provide evidence of its compliance with the law enforcement request and the applicable anti-money laundering regulations. The five-year retention period isbased on the international standard set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and adopted by many jurisdictions12.

Ask for a written request from the law enforcement agency that defines the duration. This is to protect the financial institution from potential liability and to clarify the scope and purpose of the law enforcement request. The written request should specify the time period for which the account should remain open, the reason for the request, the contact information of the law enforcement officer, and the legal authority for the request34.

According to the FATF Recommendation 10, financial institutions should conduct ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions being conducted are consistent with the institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds. This is one of the core measures of customer due diligence (CDD) that aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Reviewing parameter settings based on the latest risk assessment should be included in the evaluation of system settings for anti-money laundering alert surveillance. This is because parameter settings determine the thresholds and criteria for generating alerts based on the risk profile of the customers, products, services, channels, and jurisdictions involved in the transactions. A risk assessment is a periodic and comprehensiveanalysis of the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks faced by an organization, and it should inform the design and implementation of an effective anti-money laundering program, including the alert surveillance system. By aligning the parameter settings with the risk assessment, an organization can ensure that the system is capturing the most relevant and high-risk transactions, and reducing the number of false positives or irrelevant alerts.

A customer visiting multiple branches of the MSB on the same day in order to transfer funds internationally is a potential indicator of structuring, which is a technique used by money launderers to avoid reporting thresholds or detection by authorities. A customer attempting to buy money orders under $3,000 USD in cash multiple times a day is also apossible sign of structuring, as well as an attempt to evade the identification and recordkeeping requirements for MSBs. Both scenarios should be included in the procedures for further review by the AML Officer.

According to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), a sound KYC program should contain four essential elements: (i) customer acceptance policy; (ii) customer identification; (iii) on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts; and (iv) risk management1. These elements correspond to the options B in the question, as customer identification involves verifying the identity and beneficial ownership of the customers, risk assessment involves determining the level of risk posed by the customers and their activities, customer screening involves checking the customers against relevant sanctions and watch lists, and monitoring involves reviewing the customers’ transactions and behavior for any anomalies or red flags.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution’s risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:

The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution’s anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.

The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution’s anti-money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution’s internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program’s adequacy and effectiveness1.

The program should be sent to the institution’s government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution’s government regulator may request or review the institution’s anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.

A money laundering risk assessment is a crucial component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program. It involves identifying, assessing, and understanding the specific risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing that the institutionmay face. A risk assessment helps the institution to design and implement appropriate controls, policies, procedures, and training to mitigate the risks. A risk assessment should be updated regularly and whenever there are significant changes in the institution’s business activities, products, services, customers, or geographic locations. In this scenario, the financial institution has experienced significant deficiencies in its AML program during a recent regulatory examination. The deficiencies were primarily attributed to the lack of oversight by the institution’s leadership in implementing adequate controls over the new products and services that were added as part of the institution’s aggressive growth strategy. To correct these weaknesses in the AML program, the leadership should first address the area of international control known as “Money laundering risk assessment” (Option C). By conducting a new and comprehensive risk assessment, the leadership can identify the potential vulnerabilities and gaps in the AML program that may arise from the new products and services. The risk assessment can also help the leadership to prioritize the actions and resources needed to address the deficiencies and enhance the AML program. Once the risk assessment is completed, the leadership can then work on updating the AML policy, providing adequate training, and ensuring sufficient compliance staff to implement and monitor the controls.

Wire stripping is the process of removing or altering the identifying information associated with a wire transfer to make it difficult to trace the origin or destination of the funds. This technique is commonly used in money laundering schemes to conceal the illicit source of funds and avoid detection by authorities or sanctions screening systems. In this case, the bank’s operations team deliberately removed the reference to the sanctioned company from the wire transfer message, thus violating the FinCEN “Travel Rule” and facilitating the evasion of sanctions.

The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 13 global banks that aims to develop frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. The group started as a meeting of banks in 1999 to address anti-money laundering (AML) in private banking, which carries an increased degree of risk from a money laundering perspective. In the course of discussions, they articulated principles that reflected uniformly high standards for this client segment. These principles became the first guidance published by the group under the name Wolfsberg Principles.

TheWolfsberg Group’s Principles on Private Bankingfocus onrisk management, transparency, and financial crime prevention.

Option C (Correct):Thecore principleis that banks shouldonly accept clients whose source of funds and beneficial ownership are well understoodto mitigateAML risks.

Option A (Incorrect):Whilemanaging reputational riskis important, thepriority is AML compliance, not just protecting client privacy.

Option B (Incorrect):The Wolfsberg Group encouragesenhanced due diligence (EDD) for PEPsbut doesnot establish specific rulesfor private bankers.

Option D (Incorrect):The focus is onAML compliance, not assisting banks innavigating high data privacy jurisdictions.

According to the ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 215, one of the best practices for banks to prevent and detect mortgage fraud is to conduct internal investigations when there are red flags or suspicions of fraud involving bank employees. The investigation should include reviewing the employee’s loan files, interviewing the employee and other relevant parties, verifying the information and documents provided by the employee, and documenting the findings and actions taken. Filing a suspicious activity report (SAR) may be appropriate after the investigation is completed and the bank has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. Filing a police report or initiating civil litigation may also be options depending on the outcome of the investigation and the bank’s policies, but they are not the first steps to take when the bank suspects an employee of mortgage fraud.

AML risk assessments must beupdatedwhen there aresignificant changes in business operations.

Option A (Correct):New products (e.g.,cryptocurrency services, trade finance) introducenew AML risks.

Option D (Correct):Technology changes(e.g.,AI in transaction monitoring, new digital banking platforms) impactfraud and AML controls.

Option E (Correct):Mergers or acquisitionsintroducenew customer bases, jurisdictions, and compliance frameworks, requiringrisk reevaluation.

Option B (Incorrect):While compliance restructuring is important,it does not change inherent risk exposure.

Option C (Incorrect):Management changesmay affect oversight, but they donot directly alter risk exposure.

Financial institutions closely monitor customer accounts for suspicious activity related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. If an account consistently triggers multiple suspicious activity reports (SARs), it raises red flags. These reports indicate unusual or potentially illegal transactions, such as large cash deposits, frequent transfers to high-risk jurisdictions, or patterns inconsistent with the customer’s profile. To mitigate risk and comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, the financial institution may decide to close the account. Regular SAR filings are essential for maintaining the integrity of the financial system and preventing illicit financial flows12.

TheEU AMLD provides the legal framework, butmember states have discretionin implementation.

Option B (Correct):Countries canimpose stricter AML lawsthan theminimum EU requirements.

Option C (Correct):AMLDsset the foundation, and member statesimplement local laws.

Option A (Incorrect):EU law takes precedence, and national lawsmust alignwith it.

Option D (Incorrect):AMLDs and local AML regulations areinterlinked.

Option E (Incorrect):National AML rules do not have to be identicalacross all EU members.

International business corporations (IBCs) are entities that are created in jurisdictions that offer low or no taxes, high confidentiality, and minimal regulation. They are often used by individuals and businesses to avoid or evade taxes, conceal assets, and launder money. Some of the risks associated with IBCs are:

They are created in a tax haven. Tax havens are countries or territories that have low or no taxes, lax financial regulation, and high secrecy. They attract IBCs that seek to reduce their tax liabilities, hide their beneficial owners, and evade scrutiny from authorities. Tax havens pose a risk to the global financial system, as they facilitate tax evasion, money laundering, corruption, and illicit financial flows12.

They are established with nominee directors. Nominee directors are individuals who act as the legal representatives of an IBC, but have no actual control or authority over its activities. Theyare often used to shield the true beneficial owners of the IBC from detection and accountability. Nominee directors pose a risk to the transparency and integrity of the IBC, as they can enable fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and other criminal activities34.

Thetimely filing of SARs is legally mandated, and financial institutions mustfollow jurisdiction-specific reporting deadlines.

Option A (Correct):Regulatory requirements dictate SAR filing deadlines(e.g., in the U.S., SARs must be filed within30 calendar daysof detecting suspicious activity).

Option B (Incorrect):30 days is the U.S. standard, but different jurisdictions may havedifferent SAR deadlines(e.g.,EU AMLD mandates prompt reporting).

Option C (Incorrect):Complexity-based reporting delaysare not permitted if theyexceed regulatory timelines.

Option D (Incorrect):Relying solely on professional judgmentrather than regulatory rules can lead tonon-compliance.

SAR Filing Deadlines in Different Jurisdictions:

Jurisdiction

SAR Filing Deadline

United States (FinCEN)

30 calendar days(60 days if no suspect is identified)

United Kingdom (FCA/NCA)

As soon as practicable

European Union (6AMLD)

"Promptly" (no fixed number of days)

Australia (AUSTRAC)

3 business daysfor terrorism financing,14 business daysfor other cases

Why Timely SAR Filing Matters:

Delays in reporting can result in regulatory penalties.

Early SAR filing enables FIUs to take swift action against financial crime.

Non-compliance can lead to fines, criminal charges, and reputational damage.

According to the FATF Recommendations (2012), page 111, the FATF calls on its members and urges all jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence and, in the most serious cases, countermeasures to protect the international financial system from the money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing risks emanating from countries with significant strategic AML/CFT deficiencies. Countermeasures are proportionate and effective actions that can be applied by countries individually or collectively to protect their financial systems from these risks. Examples of countermeasures include restricting or prohibiting financial transactions with the high-risk country, requiring financial institutions to review and terminate correspondent relationships with the high-risk country, or applying enhanced reporting mechanisms or systematic reporting of financial transactions with the high-risk country.

An effective AML transaction monitoring system must align withthe bank’s operational complexity, risk exposure, and analytical capabilities.

Option A (Correct):The system must be tailored to the bank’s specific risk profile to ensure effectiveness.

Option D (Correct):A strong AML system should support trend analysis to identify long-term suspicious behaviors.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):While vendor controls are important, they do not determine system suitability.

Option C (Incorrect):User access settings should be based on the bank’s internal risk framework, not industry standards alone.

Best Practices for Implementing an AML Monitoring System:

Ensure scalability to adapt to evolving financial crime risks.

Leverage AI and machine learning to enhance detection accuracy.

Integrate real-time screening and transaction trend analysis.

TheFATF 40 Recommendationsprovide aglobal AML/CFT framework, and theImmediate Outcomesassess effectiveness.

Option A (Correct):Therisk-based approach (RBA)is the foundation ofmodern AML complianceand is mandated byFATF Recommendation 1.

Option B (Incorrect):Interpretive notes are public documentsavailable to all jurisdictions, not private.

Option C (Incorrect):The40 Recommendations are regularly updated, incorporating new technology (e.g., virtual assets in 2019).

Option D (Incorrect):The11 Immediate Outcomesassess theeffectiveness of AML systems globally, not just for high-risk countries.

TheFATF 40 Recommendationsoutlineglobal AML/CFT standards, includingrisk-based compliance and beneficial ownership transparency.

Option B (Correct):FATF requires nations to implement financial sanctions in coordination with the UN Security Council.

Option C (Correct):FATF emphasizes a risk-based approach (RBA) to prevent ML/TF.

Option E (Correct):FATF mandates transparency in beneficial ownership to prevent shell company misuse.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):FATF does not require institutions to avoid high-risk customers but to apply appropriate risk-based controls.

Option D (Incorrect):Governments do not need identical crime investigation frameworks but should ensure effective cooperation.

Best Practices for FATF Compliance:

Apply risk-based due diligence on high-risk customers.

Enhance beneficial ownership transparency measures.

Implement targeted financial sanctions in coordination with global authorities.

AML compliancemust balance financial crime prevention with data privacy regulationssuch asGDPR (EU) and CCPA (U.S.).

Option B (Correct):Data minimization ensures that only essential data is collected and processed, reducing privacy risks.

Option C (Correct):Regularly updating policies helps organizations align with evolving privacy laws and AML requirements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Unrestricted access to customer data increases the risk of data breaches and privacy violations.

Option D (Incorrect):Repurposing data beyond AML purposescan violatedata protection laws (e.g., GDPR's purpose limitation principle).

Key Data Privacy Considerations for AML Compliance:

Data minimization:Only collect data necessary for risk assessment.

Access controls:Limit employee access to customer data based on job role.

Transparency:Inform customers about how their data is used for AML compliance.

Asset management companies handlelarge amounts of funds, making themprime targets for money launderers.

Option A (Correct):Negative news (adverse media) screeningis essential for identifyingpotential financial crime risks.

Option D (Correct):Understanding thesource and origin of assetsensures that fundscome from legitimate sources.

Option B (Incorrect):PEPs should not be automatically rejected, butenhanced due diligence (EDD)is required.

Option C (Incorrect):While onboarding interviews help,they are not a mandatory AML measure.

Option E (Incorrect):Financial stability reportsare useful, butnot directly linked to AML compliance.

AML Risks in Asset Management:

High-value transactions that may mask illicit wealth.

Layering through investment portfolios to hide the origin of funds.

Use of offshore structures to evade regulatory scrutiny.

Best Practices for AML in Asset Management:

Conduct enhanced due diligence (EDD) on high-net-worth clients.

Monitor large and unusual transactions.

Screen customers against PEP, sanction, and adverse media databases.

Human trafficking and modern slaveryinvolveillicit financial transactions, often conductedthrough banks, money service businesses (MSBs), or virtual assets.

Option B (Correct):Frequent payments for online advertisementscan indicaterecruitment for illicit labor or traffickingoperations.

Option C (Correct):Incoming funds from third-party processors with unclear originatorssuggestconcealed financial flows linked to illicit activities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Transactional activity with a virtual currency exchange alone is not a strong human trafficking red flag.

Option D (Incorrect):Cash payments to workers could indicate labor law violations but do not necessarily indicate human trafficking.

Common Financial Red Flags for Human Trafficking:

Unexplained cash deposits and withdrawals from multiple accounts.

Frequent wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions.

Use of prepaid cards to move funds anonymously.

Best Practices for Detecting & Preventing Human Trafficking-Related Transactions:

Train frontline staff to recognize financial indicators of trafficking.

Monitor unusual transaction patterns in industries with high labor exploitation risks.

File Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when trafficking-related transactions are suspected.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)are tools that enableinterconnectivity and data exchangebetween different software applications. In AML contexts, APIs are commonly used tointegrate third-party systems, such as screening tools, customer databases, and transaction monitoring platforms, ensuring real-time and accurate flow of information.

This technological capability supports enhancedautomation, agility, and efficiencyin AML processes.

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 ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Exam (6th edition), page 211, dealers in precious metals and stones (DPMS) are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks due to the high value, portability, and fungibility of their products. Therefore, DPMS should apply a risk-based approach to their AML/CFT compliance program and monitor their customers and transactions for any red flags or suspicious activities. One of the red flags for DPMS is receiving payments from or sending payments to unknown or unverified third parties, especially if they are located in high-risk jurisdictions that have weak AML/CFT controls, are subject to sanctions, or are known to be sources or destinations of illicit funds. Such payments may indicate that the DPMS is being used as a conduit or a front for money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. Therefore, if a precious metals dealer opens a new account with a bank and receives or makes payments that reference unknown companies from high-risk jurisdictions, the bank should refer the account to AML investigations for further review and verification of the source and purpose of the funds, the identity and legitimacy of the third parties, and the nature and rationale of the business relationship.

Financial institutionsmust close accounts that violate sanctions laws or pose a severe AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Doing business with Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) violates U.S. OFAC and EU sanctions, requiring account closure.

Option A (Incorrect):Multiple SARs do not always require account closure; the institution may continue monitoring the customer.

Option B (Incorrect):Tuition payments are normal transactions and do not justify account closure.

Option D (Incorrect):A civil subpoena does not imply financial crime and does not require closure.

Key Account Closure Triggers:

Violation of OFAC, EU, or UN sanctions laws.

Confirmed criminal activity (e.g., fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing).

Regulatory directive or legal requirement to terminate the account.

Best Practices for Account Closure:

Document the justification for closure (e.g., sanctions compliance, AML concerns).

Notify the customer in a manner that does not constitute "tipping off."

File SARs where required before closing high-risk accounts.

OFAC sanctions apply extraterritoriallyto ensureU.S. financial and economic interests are protected.

Option A (Correct):U.S. citizensmust comply with OFAC sanctionsregardless of where they are located.

Option D (Correct):U.S.-incorporated entities and their foreign branchesare required to followOFAC restrictions.

Option E (Correct):Permanent U.S. resident aliensare subject toOFAC complianceeven outside the U.S.

Option B (Incorrect):Non-U.S. financial institutionsare notdirectly subject to OFACunless they have aU.S. presenceordeal in USD transactions.

Option C (Incorrect):Selling U.S.-origin goods does not automatically subject merchants to OFAC laws, unless they are in asanctioned jurisdiction.

Wider exposure to organized crime and corruption: When individuals or communities are exposed to organized crime networks or corrupt practices, they may become more susceptible to engaging in illicit activities. Organized crime groups often exploit vulnerabilities, leading to money laundering.

Weaker development of economy and job opportunities: In regions with limited economic growth and scarce job prospects, individuals may turn to illicit activities as a means of survival. Poverty and lack of legitimate income sources can drive people toward money laundering.

A robust AML training program should incorporate the followingbest practicesto ensure awareness and ongoing engagement:

Option A – Tailored and regular training:

Training should berisk-based and role-specific, ensuring employees understand how AML applies to their function.

Option D – Variety and resources:

Use ofinteractive, digital, live, and scenario-based methodskeeps training effective and adaptable. Providing materials and resources supports continued learning.

Option E – Communication and measurement:

Ongoing AML awareness campaigns andfeedback mechanismshelp assess theeffectivenessof training and reinforce its importance.

Option Bis too vague and not recognized as a best practice.

Option C, while helpful, isnot sufficient alone—annual frequency without contextual or tailored content is inadequate.

TheFATF Grey Listconsists of countries withAML/CFT deficienciesthat havecommitted to reforms.

Option C (Correct):Grey-listed jurisdictionsare underincreased monitoringand mustaddress identified deficiencieswithin a set timeframe.

Option A (Incorrect):Yellow noticesare used byINTERPOL, not FATF.

Option B (Incorrect):Red noticesrefer toINTERPOL arrest warrants, not FATF monitoring lists.

Option D (Incorrect):FATF doesnot maintain a "white list"of compliant jurisdictions.

AML audit findings must beanalyzed and addressed through remedial actions based on root cause analysis.

Option D (Correct):Root cause analysis helps develop effective corrective measures to prevent recurring AML deficiencies.

Option A (Incorrect):Retesting controls may be useful, but addressing deficiencies is more critical.

Option B (Incorrect):While the board oversees compliance, the responsibility for implementing fixes lies with AML teams.

Option C (Incorrect):Audit teams provide findings but do not execute corrective actions.

Best Practices for Addressing AML Audit Findings:

Identify the root cause of AML control failures.

Develop risk-based remediation plans.

Implement and monitor corrective actions.

Financial institutions must conduct thorough background checks on employees in sensitive roles (e.g., private banking) to mitigate fraud, insider trading, and money laundering risks.

Option A (Correct):Past employment records help verify work history and identify any red flags related to prior financial misconduct.

Option D (Correct):Internet and media searches reveal any negative press, regulatory issues, or connections to illicit activity.

Option E (Correct):Criminal history searches help screen for prior convictions related to financial crimes.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Personal references are less reliable and may not uncover objective risk factors.

Option C (Incorrect):A resume is self-reported and should be verified using independent sources.

Best Practices for Employee Background Screening:

Conduct enhanced due diligence for high-risk roles (e.g., private bankers, compliance officers).

Use reliable background screening tools and legal databases.

Verify employment history and check against regulatory blacklists.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the essential elements of an effective AML program is the establishment of a written AML policy that setsout the bank’s commitment to comply with the applicable AML laws and regulations, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors, senior management, and staff in implementing the AML program. The AML policy should also include the bank’s risk assessment, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record keeping, reporting, training, and audit procedures. The AML policy should be approved by the board of directors and communicated to all staff from the top down. The other options are not incorrect, but they are not the primary responsibility of the board of directors in demonstrating commitment to AML compliance.

Financial institutions must screen customers against adverse information and determine whether they pose a significant financial crime risk.

Option B (Correct):A direct link to an organized crime group is a severe red flag. Organized crime networks engage in money laundering, corruption, and other illicit activities. UnderFATF Recommendations 10 and 12, financial institutions must implement enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customers and consider account closure if they pose undue risk.

Option A (Incorrect):Bankruptcy does not necessarily indicate financial crime risk, though it may raise financial stability concerns.

Option C (Incorrect):While PEPs pose a higher risk for corruption, financial institutions typically apply EDD rather than immediately terminating the relationship.

Option D (Incorrect):Violating a construction permit is a regulatory issue, not directly linked to financial crime.

According to the Wolfsberg Group, a global association of leading banks that develops guidance and standards for the management of financial crime risks, both private and correspondent banks should monitor account and transactional activity after the proper identification and verification of customers, as part of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures12. This is consistent with the FATF Recommendation 10, which requires financial institutions to conduct ongoing due diligence on their business relationships, including scrutinising transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the customer’s risk profile and source of funds3. Monitoring account and transactional activity is a key component of the risk-based approach, as it enables banks to detect and report suspicious or unusual transactions, identify changes in customer behaviour or circumstances, and update customer information and risk assessments accordingly4.

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.

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.

TheBoard of Directorsholdsultimate responsibilityforAML/CFT compliance and governance.

Option B (Correct):TheBoardmustoversee, approve, and ensure AML programs are effective.

Option A (Incorrect):TheCOO manages operations, butdoes not hold ultimate accountability.

Option C (Incorrect):While theAML officer executes compliance programs, theBoard provides oversight.

Option D (Incorrect):TheCEO is responsible for strategy, butAML failures fall under Board accountability.

These two options are indicative of money laundering red flags associated with money service businesses, as they may suggest attempts to avoid reporting requirements, conceal the source or destination of funds, or use false or stolen identities. Money service businesses are vulnerable to money laundering due to the high volume and anonymity of transactions, the ease of cross-border transfers, and the lack of effective regulation and supervision in some jurisdictions12. Therefore, they should implement robust anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and monitor and report any suspicious activity.

Cross-borderAML investigationsrequire cooperation throughofficial channels, such as theEgmont Group.

Option D (Correct):TheEgmont Groupis an international network ofFIUs that facilitates secure information exchangein financial crime investigations.

Option A (Incorrect):While sovereignty applies,formal international cooperation mechanisms exist.

Option B (Incorrect):AML cooperation is allowed under legal frameworks(e.g.,MLATs, Egmont Secure Web).

Option C (Incorrect):Information-sharing is restrictedtoauthorized government agencies, not all organizations.

TheUSA PATRIOT Actincludes provisions allowingthe 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 Actprovides U.S. regulators with the authority toseize funds deposited in U.S. correspondent accounts of foreign banks if linked to illicit activity.

Option B (Incorrect):Section 314(a)focuses oninformation sharing between law enforcement and financial institutions.

Option C (Incorrect):Section 319(b)enables U.S. authorities toseize funds linked to foreign correspondent banking accounts, but319(a) specifically deals with extraterritorial forfeiture.

Option D (Incorrect):Section 314(b)allowsfinancial 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.

The activities that could be considered a potential spear phishing scam are:

A courier delivers a duplicate invoice to a business that contains updated payment details of an existing supplier. This could be a way of diverting funds to a fraudulent account by impersonating a legitimate vendor and exploiting the trust relationship between the business and the supplier1.

Payroll receives an external email from an employee looking to update their bank account information. This could be a way of stealing money from the employee or the employer by pretending to be the employee and requesting a change in the payment method or destination2.

An employee receives an email that asks to download an attachment, but the attachment is a malware. This could be a way of infecting the employee’s computer or network with malicious software that could compromise sensitive data, disrupt operations, or demand ransom3.

The other options are not necessarily spear phishing scams, although they may be other types of fraud or deception. For example:

An employee receives a phone call requesting that money be sent to assist someone in trouble. This could be a vishing scam, which is a form of voice phishing that uses phone calls to solicit personal or financial information or to request money transfers4.

A business sends its employees an email warning that email passwords must be changed to prevent cyber-fraud. This could be a legitimate security measure, or it could be a phishing scam, which is a form of email phishing that targets a broad audience and tries to trick them into revealing their credentials or clicking on malicious links.

Members of a religious organization receive a donation request by email claiming to be from their leader. This could be a genuine appeal, or it could be a social engineering scam, which is a form of manipulation that exploits the human factor and relies on the victim’s emotions, trust, or sympathy.

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.

USA PATRIOT Act Section 314(b)allows financial institutions tovoluntarily share information with one another, after notifying the U.S. Treasury, toidentify and report possible money laundering or terrorist financing activities.

Key elements include:

Voluntary participation

Prior notice to FinCEN (part of the U.S. Treasury)

Protection from liability when acting in good faith

Enhanced collaborative detection across institutions

Section 314(a)refers toinformation sharing between law enforcement and financial institutions, not peer-to-peer sharing.

COSMICis an initiative in certain jurisdictions like Singapore, not U.S. regulation.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1624is part of the EU AML framework, not relevant to U.S. institutions.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for theadministration and enforcement of economic and trade sanctions. These sanctions are based on U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and target:

Foreign countries and regimes

Terrorist organizations

Narcotics traffickers

Individuals and entities engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

OFAC acts under various authorities, including national emergency powers granted by the President and specific legislation. One of its primary tools is theSpecially Designated Nationals(SDN) List, which identifies individuals and entities whose assets are blocked and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing.

It is important to note that OFAC is not responsible for designating jurisdictions as primary money laundering concerns (a task handled by FinCEN under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act), nor does it manage trade agreements.

FIs must handlelaw enforcement subpoenas carefullytocomply with legal and AML obligations.

Option A (Correct):Legal counsel must review subpoenasto ensure compliance withAML and privacy laws.

Option B (Incorrect):Original documentsshould only be provided underspecific legal conditions.

Option C (Incorrect):Account closure decisionsmust followAML risk-based assessment.

Option D (Incorrect):Tipping offa customer about an investigation isillegalunder AML laws.

ARisk Appetite Statement (RAS)defines an institution’sacceptable level of risk-takingand alignsAML and financial crime controlswithorganizational strategy.

Option C (Correct):AnRAS sets clear limits for acceptable risk-taking, balancingrisk and business opportunities.

Option D (Correct):The RASis a management-approved documentthat integratesrisk tolerance, compliance strategy, and business goals.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):An RASis not just a reporting document; it actively shapesrisk management decisions.

Option B (Incorrect):An RAS includesboth qualitative and quantitative factors, butnot just qualitative elements.

Option E (Incorrect):An RAS does notonly define residual risk—itguides overall risk limitsand policies.

How an RAS Strengthens AML Compliance:

Defines acceptable AML risk levels across business units.

Guides compliance teams on risk tolerance for high-risk customers.

Ensures alignment with FATF, regulatory expectations, and internal controls.

Thethird line of defense (internal audit)is responsible forproviding independent assurance to the Board of Directorsaboutthe effectiveness of AML/CFT controls.

Option C (Correct):Theinternal audit function provides independent review and oversight of AML risksto theboard.

Option A (Incorrect):There is no "fourth line of defense" in AML risk management frameworks.

Option B (Incorrect):Thesecond line (compliance & risk management)is responsible formonitoring AML processes but does not provide direct board assurance.

Option D (Incorrect):Thefirst line (business units) manages AML risks dailybut does not provide board assurance.

Best Practices for Internal Audit in AML Programs:

Ensure audits are risk-based and independent.

Report findings directly to the board’s audit committee.

Regularly test AML controls to assess effectiveness.

The Belgian bank should freeze the assets of the customer and report to OFAC, as this is the required action for any US person or entity, or any person or entity within the US, that holds or controls property or interests in property of a person or entity on the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). The SDN List is a list of individuals and entities that are subject to US sanctions and whose assets are blocked by OFAC. The Belgian bank, by maintaining a branch in New York, is subject to the jurisdiction and authority of OFAC, and must comply with its regulations and directives. Allowing transactions, closing the account, or continuing business as usual would violate the sanctions and expose the bank to civil and criminal penalties.

Non-compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) laws and regulations can lead to severe consequences for both financial institutions and individuals. One of the indirect consequences is the imposition of punitive fines. These fines can vary based on the type of violation and the institution’s willingness to address the issue. Additionally, non-compliance may damage a company’s reputation, impacting its standing in the market and potentially leading to financial losses beyond the fines themselves123.

Money Services Businesses (MSBs)are commonly recognized by regulatory and supervisory authorities as havinghigher inherent AML/CFT risk, particularly due to certain business characteristics.

Option B – The prevalence of international wire transfers:

MSBs often facilitatecross-border transactions, which present a higher money laundering and terrorist financing risk due to challenges in verifying customer identity, the origin of funds, and the end destination—especially when dealing with higher-risk jurisdictions.

Option D – The cash-intensive nature of the services offered:

Many MSBs deal primarily incash, which increases the risk ofanonymous transactionsandfunds layering, making it harder to trace illicit activity. Cash is the most vulnerable medium for placement of illicit funds into the financial system.

Option AandOption E, while involving modern technologies,can actually reduce riskwhen implemented with proper controls (e.g., secure digital onboarding and traceable payments enhance auditability).

Option Cdoes not in itself signal high AML risk unless combined with other red flags.

The Egmont Group is a united body of 174 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that uniquely support national and international efforts to counter terrorist financing and share financial information per global anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards. Its primary objective is to enhance international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and financing of terrorism. The Egmont Group facilitates the exchange of expertise and financial intelligence among FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offenses. While it does not conduct financial investigations itself, it plays a crucial role in improving stakeholders’ understanding of ML/TF risks and informing policy considerations related to AML/CFT implementation and reforms12.

 Predicate offenses are the criminal activities that generate the proceeds that are later laundered through money laundering schemes. A country that does not have strong predicate offenses and is lax in prosecuting AML cases could suffer from increased organized crime and corruption, as criminals would have more opportunities and incentives to engage in illicit activities and evade detection and punishment. Organized crime and corruption can have serious social and economic consequences for a country, such as undermining the rule of law, eroding public trust, threatening national security, harming human rights, reducing economic growth, and distorting market competition123.

 The board of directors or designated specialized committee should be provided with statistical data regarding SARs filed during the reported period, such as the number, type, and amount of SARs, as well as any trends or patterns identified. This would enable them to oversee the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering program and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Providing too much detail, such as names of customers or copies of SARs, could compromise the confidentiality of the SARs and expose the institution to legal risks.

Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Actenhancesregulatory oversight of foreign financial institutions with U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option A (Correct):This section requires foreign banks to provide relevant AML records within 120 hours upon request from a U.S. regulatory agency.

Option B (Incorrect):This describes Section 311, which deals with special measures against foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions.

Option C (Incorrect):This is covered under Section 319(b), which permits asset seizures from U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option D (Incorrect):This relates to Section 312, which mandates due diligence on foreign correspondent accounts and private banking.

Best Practices for Compliance with Section 319(a):

Ensure the ability to produce AML-related records within 120 hours.

Establish clear communication channels between correspondent banks.

Monitor foreign financial institution relationships for compliance risks.

Non-compliance with AML regulatory obligations can have severe consequences for financial institutions. Among these, the most severe consequence is the loss of license. When a financial institution fails to meet AML requirements, regulators may revoke its license to operate. Losing the license effectively shuts down the institution’s ability to conduct business, impacting its existence and operations significantly12.

 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.

Theart and antiquities marketis frequently exploited formoney laundering and terrorist financing.

Option A (Correct):Art storage facilities in tax-free zonesallowanonymous transactions, creatinghigh AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Third-party art advisorscan be used asintermediariestoobscure true ownership.

Option D (Correct):Selling art on social mediawithout proper vetting allows foranonymous transactions.

Option B (Incorrect):Paying fair market valuedoes not indicatesuspicious activity.

Option E (Incorrect):Authenticity verificationdoes notincrease AML risk.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, the AML Specialist at a bank should take the following actions upon receiving a confidential alert from law enforcement about suspected money launderers:

Involve the bank’s legal and compliance function to address the gravity of the matter and ensure that the bank’s response is appropriate and lawful. The legal and compliance function can also advise on the bank’s obligations and rights under the relevant laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Perform a search on the bank’s client data platform to determine if the bank has had any business with the named individuals or any related parties. The search should include current and past accounts, transactions, wire transfers, and other relevant records. The AML Specialist should also review any existing customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) information on the potential suspects and update them as necessary.

The other options are not recommended or required actions for the AML Specialist at a bank in this scenario:

Sending out an email to all of the bank’s client advisors to request information on any of the individuals could compromise the confidentiality of the alert and expose the bank to legal and reputational risks. It could also alert the suspects or their associates and hinder the law enforcement investigation.

Reporting findings back to law enforcement only if they are of any significance is not sufficient or compliant with the bank’s obligations to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity. The AML Specialist should report any relevant information or findings to law enforcement as soon as possible, regardless of their significance, and follow the established procedures and protocols for information sharing and reporting.

Responding to law enforcement that their request without a judicial order would breach the bank’s GDPR duty with respect to its clients is not accurate or helpful. The GDPR does not prohibit the bank from sharing personal data with law enforcement for the purposes of preventing, detecting, or investigating money laundering or other criminal activities, as long as the bank has a legal basis and safeguards for doing so. The bank should consult with its legal and compliance function to determine the best way to respond to the law enforcement request and balance its GDPR obligations with its anti-money laundering (AML) duties.

Terrorist financing (TF) differs from traditional money laundering, as funds can originate fromlegitimate sources(e.g., donations, charities) and often involvelow-value transactions.

Option A (Correct):Non-profits with no online presencecan beshell organizations used to finance terrorism.

Option C (Correct):Small-dollar payments to high-risk jurisdictions(e.g., FATF-listed countries)may indicate terrorist funding activity.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Crowdfunding payments with transparency and project detailsare generallylow-risk.

Option D (Incorrect):Charities helping refugeesmay behigh-risk but not automatically suspicious.

Option E (Incorrect):Structuring below reporting thresholds is more indicative of money laundering than terrorist financing.

Red Flags for Terrorist Financing:

Frequent low-value transactions to conflict zones.

Use of charities and non-profits as fronts for terror groups.

Funds moving through unregulated crowdfunding platforms.

Best Practices for Detecting Terrorist Financing:

Identify transactions involving known terrorist financing typologies.

Enhance monitoring of non-profit organizations operating in high-risk regions.

Use negative news screening to detect links to sanctioned entities.

The customer’s business activity as a domestic carpet cleaning company is not inherently suspicious, as it aligns with their registered business. However, the significant weekly transactions from an international reputable antique auction house raise red flags.

The sudden increase in the customer’s initial international receipt from $15,000 USD to an average of $30,000 USD per transaction per week is also noteworthy. Such a substantial change warrants further scrutiny.

The fact that 90% of the incoming deposits are matched by cash outgoings to non-related individuals could indicate layering or structuring activities associated with money laundering.

Overall, the combination of large international transactions, increased receipts, and cash outflows to unrelated parties from an antique auction house is the most concerning aspect.

In situations involving significant AML concerns, especially with high-risk clients, thecompliance officer must follow proper escalation procedureswithin the institution. The appropriate course of action is toescalate the matter to a senior governance body, such as ahigh-risk client committee, which is typically tasked with balancing AML risk against business considerations.

Unilateral offboarding (Option B)may violate internal protocols.

Persuading the relationship manager (Option C)bypasses formal governance.

Delaying action (Option D)risks further exposure to regulatory or reputational damage.

This escalation ensuresdocumented risk-based decision-makingand demonstrates to regulators that the institution appliesstructured and objective AML governance.

Higher-risk customer profilesoften include businesses that:

Regularly handle large volumes of cash

Operate in sectors withhistorical vulnerabilities to money laundering

Are involved invirtual assets or unregulated financial activities

Option C – A local used car sale lot that allows cash payments:

This business type is consideredcash-intensive, and accepting monthly payments in cash raises concerns about the source of funds, potential structuring, or placement of illicit proceeds.

Option D – A Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP):

VASPs involved inpeer-to-peer crypto transactionspresent elevated AML risks due to theanonymity, speed, and borderless natureof virtual assets. These institutions are often subject toenhanced due diligence requirements.

Option Ais incorrect: A large multinational with documented transactions and transparency typically poseslower inherent risk, though still subject to review.

Option Bmay be reviewed, buton-site ATM replenishment using store cashis not automatically a red flag without other risk indicators.

Financial institutions (FIs) are required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in their investigations of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. However, sometimes LEAs may submit requests for information or documents that are overly broad, unduly intrusive, or unreasonable in scope or volume. Such requests may pose challenges or risks for FIs, such as violating customer privacy, compromising data security, disrupting business operations, or incurring excessive costs.

The most appropriate response for an FI in such a situation is to narrow the request through a prompt response to the LEA. This means that the FI should communicate with the LEA as soon as possible to clarify the purpose, scope, and relevance of the request, and to negotiate a more reasonable and proportionate request that meets the LEA’s needs and the FI’s capabilities. The FI should also explain the potential difficulties or consequences of complying with the original request, and propose alternative or additional sources of information that may be more useful or accessible. The FI should document the communication and the agreed terms of the request, and comply with the request in a timely and accurate manner.

By narrowing the request through a prompt response, the FI can demonstrate its good faith and willingness to cooperate with the LEA, while also protecting its own interests and obligations. This can help avoid or resolve any conflicts or misunderstandings between the FI and the LEA, and facilitate a more efficient and effective investigation.

When investigating apotentially suspicious cross-border payment, a financial institution should followrisk-based due diligence procedures.

Option B (Correct):Sanctions screeningis critical to ensure theoriginator or beneficiaryisnot listed on OFAC, EU, UN, or other sanctions lists.

Option C (Correct):Requestingsupporting documents(e.g., invoices, contracts) helps determine whether the transaction isconsistent with the customer’s profile.

Option D (Correct):Conductingnegative news (adverse media) checkshelps identifyfinancial crime risks, such as fraud or money laundering.

Option A (Incorrect):Banksdo not directly calltransaction recipients unless there is a clear suspicion requiring customer verification.

Option E (Incorrect):314(b) requestsunder theUSA PATRIOT Actallow information sharing among U.S. financial institutions butcannot be used for foreign banks.

The customer’s relocation and expansion to different jurisdictions constitutes a triggering event that requires ongoing due diligence on this client, as it may indicate changes in the customer’s risk profile, business activities, or beneficial ownership. The bank should update the customer’s information, verify the identity and legitimacy of the new entities, and assess the level of money laundering and sanctions risks associated with the new locations12. The other options are not triggering events, as they are either consistent with the customer’s normal business operations or do not affect the customer’s risk profile.

The customer purchased property insurance that is twice the value of the business indicates potential money laundering. This could be a sign of insurance fraud, which is one of the predicate offenses for money laundering. Insurance fraud involves making false or exaggerated claims to obtain illegitimate financial benefits from an insurance company. The customer may have purchased an excessive amount of insurance to cover the value of the property and then intentionally damage or destroy it to claim the insurance payout. The customer may then use the insurance money to launder the proceeds of other criminal activities.

it describes a reason why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, which is names of the settlor and beneficiaries are not publicly available. This means that the true owners and controllers of the funds or assets held by the trust are hidden from the public and the authorities, and can only be accessed by the trustee or the protector, who may be complicit or unaware of the money laundering scheme. This creates a high level of anonymity and secrecy for the money launderers, who can use the trust to move, disguise, or conceal the origin and destination of their illicit funds.

The other options are not necessarily reasons why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, although they may have some advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option B describes a possible motive for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is to minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C describes a possible challenge or obstacle for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is offshore jurisdictions are unfamiliar with trust, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be other legal or financial vehicles available in those jurisdictions. Option D describes a possible characteristic or feature of a trust, which is trusts may hold assets of significant size, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be valid reasons or sources for the large assets.

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

The board of directors is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the financial institution has an effective anti-money laundering program that complies with the applicable laws and regulations. If the institution receives a regulatory enforcement action, the board should take prompt and corrective actions to address the deficiencies and mitigate the risks of further violations or penalties. One of the most important actions is to instruct the compliance officer to develop a plan to remediate the institution’s anti-money laundering program, which should include a root cause analysis, a gap assessment, a timeline, and a budget. The board should also monitor the implementation and progress of the remediation plan, and communicate with the regulators on a regular basis.

The other options are not appropriate actions for the board of directors to take in response to a regulatory enforcement action. Terminating the compliance officer and staff may not solve the underlying issues of the anti-money laundering program, and may create more disruption and instability. Purchasing and installing a new suspicious activity monitoring system may not be necessary or sufficient to address the deficiencies, and may entail additional costs and challenges. Hiring an attorney to protest the enforcement action may not be in the best interest of the institution, and may antagonize the regulators and escalate the situation.

 A U.S. bank must block or reject an international funds transfer when there is an OFAC designated party to the transaction, regardless of the beneficiary or the correspondent bank. This is because the U.S. bank is prohibited from dealing with any person or entity that is on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) or subject to any other OFAC sanctions program1. The SDN List includes individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, that are designated under programs that are not country-specific2. The U.S. bank must also report any blocked or rejected transactions to OFAC within 10 business days3.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the employee should report the conversation to the compliance officer because the colleague is engaging in tipping off, which is a serious violation of anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Tipping off is the act of informing a person or entity that they are the subject of a suspicious transaction report or an investigation, or providing any information that may compromise or impede the investigation. Tipping off can result in criminal penalties, civil liabilities, and disciplinary actions for the individual and the institution. Therefore, the employee has a duty to report the colleague’s misconduct to the compliance officer, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and taking appropriate corrective actions.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations address the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons (such as companies, foundations, associations, etc.) and legal arrangements (such as trusts, fiducies, anstalts, etc.) in Recommendations 24 and 25. These recommendations aim to prevent the misuse of legal persons and arrangements for money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit purposes, by requiring countries to ensure that accurate and up-to-date information on the natural persons who ultimately own or control them (the beneficial owners) is available to the competent authorities in a timely manner.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the best practices for dealing with law enforcement inquiries is to verify the identity and authority of the law enforcement officer before providing any information (p. 224). This is to ensure that the inquiry is legitimate and not a phishing attempt or a breach of confidentiality. The compliance officer should also document the inquiry and the information provided, and consult with legal counsel if necessary. The other options are not appropriate, as they may either violate the law, compromise the investigation, or create unnecessary work.

it describes the action that the anti-money laundering specialist should take next, which is to consult with senior management and the legal advisor. This is because the specialist needs to seek guidance and approval from the higher authorities and the legal experts on how to handle the situation without compromising the ongoing criminal investigation or violating the anti-money laundering laws and regulations. The specialist also needs to ensure that the institution’s internal policies and procedures are followed andthat the appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the risks and protect the reputation of the institution.

The other options are not necessarily actions that the anti-money laundering specialist should take next, although they may be considered or implemented later depending on the outcome of the consultation and the investigation. Option A describes a possible consequence for the employee, which is to recommend the immediate termination of the employee, but this may not be the best course of action at this stage, as it may alert the employee or the dealer of the investigation, or it may be premature or disproportionate without sufficient evidence or due process. Option B describes a possible measure for the dealer, which is to advise that the dealer’s accounts should be closed, but this may not be feasible or advisable at this stage, as it may also tip off the dealer or the employee of the investigation, or it may interfere with the collection of evidence or the prosecution of the case. Option D describes a possible reporting obligation for the institution, which is to inform the institution’s regulatory agency of the situation, but this may not be required or appropriate at this stage, as it may conflict with the instructions of the competent authority or the confidentiality of the investigation, or it may expose the institution to legal or regulatory liabilities or sanctions.

According to the ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 37, one of the red flags of money laundering or terrorist financing is the use of nominees, trusts, or third parties to hide the identity, ownership, or control of the funds or assets involved in the transaction. Nominees are individuals or entities that act on behalf of the actual or beneficial owners of a company, trust, or account, and may be used to conceal the source, destination, or purpose of the funds or assets. Nominees may also be used to evade taxes, sanctions, or regulatory requirements.

In this case, the compliance officer is unable to verify the identity of the beneficial owners of the company, and only information on the nominee owners was provided. This raises the suspicion that the company may be involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities, and that the nominee owners may be acting as fronts or intermediaries for the actual or beneficial owners. The compliance officer should conduct further due diligence on the company, the nominee owners, and the beneficial owners, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

According to the Wolfsberg Principles on Private Banking, the bank should apply additional diligence to customers who present a higher risk of money laundering or other financial crimes. Some of the indicators for defining such customers are:

Persons residing in or having funds from countries with inadequate AML standards, sanctions, embargoes, or other measures that indicate a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing12.

Persons engaged in business activities known to be susceptible to money laundering, such as cash-intensive businesses, gambling, arms trade, precious metals and stones, art and antiquities, etc13.

Persons determined to be Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), who are individuals who hold or have held positions of public trust or influence, or their family members or close associates, and who may pose a higher risk of corruption, bribery, or abuse of power14.

Persons who receive funds from a correspondent banking relationship are not necessarily required additional diligence, unless they fall under any of the above categories or other risk factors. Correspondent banking is a service provided by one bank to another bank to facilitate cross-border transactions, and it is subject to its own set of AML standards and due diligence measures5.

The bank should request a formal letter be submitted to verify the validity of the request, as this is the best practice to ensure compliance with the law and protect customer privacy. The bank should not confirm or deny the existence of a customer relationship, nor provide any information without proper authorization. The bank should also not inform the board of directors before responding to the request, as this could compromise the confidentiality of the investigation or alert the customer.

Online banking is vulnerable to all three stages of money laundering, namely placement, layering, and integration, because it allows the movement of funds across different accounts, jurisdictions, and institutions with speed, anonymity, and convenience. Online banking can facilitate the following money laundering methods:

Placement: The initial stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are introduced into the financial system. Online banking can enable placement by allowing the deposit of cash or checks through ATMs, mobile devices, or remote deposit capture, or the transfer of funds from prepaid cards, digital wallets, or cryptocurrencies to bank accounts.

Layering: The second stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are moved, disguised, or concealed to obscure their origin and ownership. Online banking can enable layering by allowing the transfer of funds between multiple accounts, often in different jurisdictions or currencies, or the purchase of financial products or services, such as money orders, wire transfers, or online gambling, that create complex transaction trails.

Integration: The final stage of money laundering, where illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate economy as apparently legal income or assets. Online banking can enable integration by allowing the transfer of funds to legitimate businesses, investments, or charities, or the purchase of goods or services, such as real estate, luxury items, or travel, that provide a cover for the source of funds.

Wire stripping is a technique used by money launderers to remove or alter information that identifies the originator or beneficiary of a wire transfer, in order to avoid detection or tracing. To detect wire stripping, a bank employee should compare the wire transaction as it enters and after it leaves the bank, and look for any discrepancies or missing information in the fields related to the originator or beneficiary. The employee should also check for suspicious phrases usually used to conceal originator or beneficiary identity, such as “for further credit”, “in favor of”, “on behalf of”, or “as instructed”.

'https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/wolfsberg-standards/8.%20Wolfsberg-Correspondent-Banking-Principles-2014.pdf - page 6 Monitoring and Reporting of Suspicious Activities The institution shall implement bank-wide policies and procedures to detect and investigate unusual or suspicious activity and report any such activity as required by applicable law. These will include guidance on what is considered to be unusual or suspicious and give examples thereof. The policies and procedures shall include appropriate monitoring of the Correspondent Bank’s activity, incorporating due diligence results such as customer risk rating and other factors considered meaningful in the assessment of transaction activity risk. In turn, the results of suspicious activity monitoring shall be factored into the periodic review of the client’s file, particularly when the results of transaction monitoring indicate elevated risk levels.

Wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions and large cash deposits from a high-risk jurisdiction are two red flags that may indicate money laundering. These activities suggest thatthe customer is trying to move funds from or to a country that has weak anti-money laundering (AML) controls, or that is known to be a source or destination of illicit funds12. Wire transfers can also be used to obscure the origin or destination of the funds, or to layer transactions through multiple accounts or intermediaries3. Large cash deposits can indicate that the customer is trying to avoid the reporting or record-keeping requirements that apply to cash transactions, or that the customer is dealing with proceeds from illegal activities45. The other two options are not necessarily red flags, as the bank may have legitimate reasons to allow cash deposits, and the client may reside in a high-risk jurisdiction for legitimate reasons.

Money laundering can have negative effects on a country’s currencies and interest rates, as it distorts the allocation of resources and the demand and supply ofmoney. According to the IMF1, money laundering can also adversely affect currencies and interest rates as launderers reinvest funds where their schemes are less likely to be detected, rather than where rates of return are higher. This can create artificial fluctuations and imbalances in the exchange and interest rates, and undermine the effectiveness of monetary policy. For example, if launderers invest in low-yield assets such as government bonds or real estate, they may drive up the prices and lower the yields of these assets, while reducing the availability of funds for more productive investments. This can also affect the inflation and growth prospects of the country.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), one of the challenges of information sharing within a financial group is the compliance with privacy and data protection rules that may vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, before sharing information about a customer with an affiliate, a bank should consider whether such sharing is permitted by the applicable laws and regulations, and whether the customer has consented to it. The other options are not relevant factors for information sharing in the case of an investigation.

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature uses a money trader to ensure that US drug sales revenue doesn’t cross any borders. Instead, those dollars are used to purchase any number of legitimate commodities from unsuspecting businesses on behalf of legitimate South American businesspersons, whose legitimate imports are used to obtain pesos for the drug cartels. This method is closely associated with international trade because it involves the exchange of goods and currencies across different countries, and it exploits the discrepancies between the official and unofficial exchange rates.

 The integration stage of money laundering is where the illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate financial system, making them appear as lawful income or assets. This may include using multiple accounts, transferring funds between different banks or jurisdictions, and engaging in various financial activities to legitimize the illicit funds. The integration stage aims to make the illicit funds appear legitimate and indistinguishable from lawful funds within the financial system1.

Option C is an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it involves moving the illicit funds from one bank account to another, creating a complex trail of transactions that obscures the origin and ownership of the funds. This technique is also known as wire transfer laundering or electronic funds transfer laundering2.

Option A is an example of the placement stage of money laundering, as it involves depositing the illicit funds into the financial system for the first time, using a front company as a cover for the illegal source of the funds. A front company is a legitimate business that is used to conceal or facilitate illicit activity.

Option B is an example of the layering stage of money laundering, as it involves converting the illicit cash into other forms of value that are less conspicuous and easier to move, such as negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments are documents that promise payment to a specified person or the bearer, such as checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks.

Option D is not an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it does not involve any financial transactions or accounts. It is rather an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving the purchase of goods or services, such as a luxury vehicle, with the illicit funds that had previously been deposited and layered through the financial system.

Evaluating the risk scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every eighteen to twenty-four months, before the launch of a new product, or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.

A sound Customer Due Diligence Program (CDD) is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) framework. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CFT, CDD involves the following elements1:

Identifying the customer and verifying their identity using reliable, independent sources of information or documents.

Identifying the beneficial owner and taking reasonable measures to verify their identity, so that the financial institution understands who ultimately owns or controls the customer or the funds.

Understanding and obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.

Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutinizing transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the financial institution’s knowledge of the customer, their business and risk profile, and the source of funds.

Therefore, the three elements of a sound CDD program that are listed in the question are:

Determination of what type of customer the financial institution will accept: This involves defining the customer acceptance policy and risk appetite of the financial institution, and applying appropriate risk-based measures to accept or reject customers based on their risk profile and the financial institution’s ability to manage and mitigate those risks2.

Training as to how and to what extent to identify prospective customers: This involves providing adequate and regular training to the staff who are responsible for conducting CDD, and ensuring that they are aware of the legal and regulatory requirements, the internal policies and procedures, the risk indicators, the verification methods, and the reporting obligations3.

Obtaining date of birth and address of a prospective customer: This is part of the basic information that is required to identify and verify the customer’s identity, and to establish their risk profile and the source of funds. The date of birth and address can also be used to check against various databases and watchlists to detect any potential matches with sanctioned or high-risk individuals or entities4.

The element that is not part of a sound CDD program is:

Determination of who in the institution should be assigned to the prospective customer as a liaison: This is not a mandatory or essential element of CDD, although it may be a good practice to assign a dedicated relationship manager or contact person to each customer, especially for high-risk or complex customers, to ensure effective communication, monitoring, and service delivery.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide (6th edition), the bank’s anti-money laundering officer is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of the bank’s anti-money laundering program, which includes reporting and escalating suspicious activities involving PEPs. The anti-money laundering officer should be informed of any unusual or potentially illicit transactions involving PEPs, and decide on the appropriate course of action, such as filing additional reports, conducting enhanced due diligence, or terminating the relationship with the PEP. The other options are not correct because they are either not directly involved in the anti-money laundering program, or not the appropriate authority to contact in this situation.

An institution should focus on the appropriateness of having a centralized review of suspicious transactions and recommendations to file an STR to ensure consistency. This is because a centralized review process can help to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of STRs, as well as to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies. A centralized review process can also facilitate the analysis of trends, patterns, and typologies of suspicious transactions across the institution, and enable the communication and coordination with relevant stakeholders, such as law enforcement, regulators, or other financial institutions.

Accountants can be involved in money laundering schemes in various ways, either knowingly or unknowingly. Some of the common methods that accountants can use to launder money are:

Overstating income to hide excess cash: This method involves inflating the revenues or profits of a business to conceal the origin of illicit funds. For example, an accountant can create fake invoices or receipts to justify the deposit of cash from illegal sources into the business account. This can make the cash appear as legitimate income from the business operations.

Acting as a conduit for transferring cash between accounts: This method involves using the accountant’s own account or a third-party account to move funds around and obscure the audit trail. For example, an accountant can receive cash from a client and deposit it into their own account, then transfer it to another account or withdraw it in a different location. This can make it difficult to trace the source and destination of the funds.

Acting as a designee for someone who wishes to hide their identity: This method involves using the accountant’s name or credentials to open accounts or conduct transactions on behalf of a client who wants to remain anonymous. For example, an accountant can act as a nominee director or shareholder for a shell company that is used to launder money. This can make it appear as if the accountant is the owner or beneficiary of the funds, while the actual owner or beneficiary is hidden.

An institution should incorporate on-going training, periodic audits, and ability to incorporate relevant legislative and regulatory AML changes in its AML policies and procedures. These are essential elements of an effective AML program, as they ensure that the staff are aware of their roles and responsibilities, the institution is compliant with the applicable laws and regulations, and the AML program is updated and adapted to the changing risks and environment.

One of the methods that FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs) use to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions is to conduct regional-level research and analysis of the methods and trends used by criminals and terrorists to exploit the vulnerabilities of the financial system. This research and analysis is done using the standards and templates developed by the FATF for its typologies reports, which are documents that describe the common features, techniques, and patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing activities. By producing their own typologies reports, FSRBs can identify the specific risks and challenges faced by their member countries and jurisdictions, and provide guidance and recommendations on how to mitigate them.

These designated nonfinancial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) include — casinos when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold………. — real estate agents when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties; — dealers in precious metals and stones when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold; — lawyers, notaries and independent legal professionals and accountants when they prepare or carry out transactions for clients concerning buying and selling real estate; …….; and — trust and company service providers when they prepare or carry out transactions for a client concerning certain activities ….

Designating a country as being of “prime money laundering concern” allows the U.S. government to impose one or more of five special measures under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act12. These special measures are intended to protect the U.S. financial system from the risks posed by the designated country, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The fifth special measure, which is the most severe, authorizes the Treasury Department to prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions that involve the designated country12. Correspondent accounts are accounts that enable foreign banks to access the U.S. financial system and provide services to their customers, while payable-through accounts are accounts that allow foreign banks to offer their customers direct access to the U.S. financial system3. Closing these accounts effectively cuts off the designated country from the U.S. financial system and imposes significant costs and burdens on its financial sector.

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, the decision to keep or close an account after filing a suspicious transaction report (STR) should be based on a risk-based approach that considers the nature and severity of the suspicious activity, the customer profile and relationship, the regulatory and legal obligations, and the reputational and operational risks for the institution. The financial impact, the administrativecosts, and the number of accounts closed are not the primary factors in determining the appropriate course of action. Therefore, the correct answer is B. Procedures to ascertain the potential risk to the organization.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the red flags for money laundering in cash-intensive businesses is “the presence of privately-owned ATMs on the premises” (p. 222). This could indicate that the business is using the ATM to deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash from illicit sources, or to facilitate the movement of funds across borders. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering risk, as they could be explained by legitimate factors such as the change in customer preferences, the economic situation, or the expansion of the business.

The board of directors has the ultimate responsibility within a bank for ensuring that the bank has a comprehensive and effective BSA/AML program and oversight framework that is reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) BSA/AML Examination Manual, the board of directors must approve the BSA/AML compliance program, which includes the BSA/AML policy, internal controls, independent testing, designatedBSA/AML compliance officer, and training1. The board of directors must also provide sufficient resources, ensure qualified staff, and hold senior management accountable for implementing and adhering to the BSA/AML compliance program1.

 Having inadequate privacy policies and procedures can expose an organization to legal risks such as industry or regulatory sanctions and charges of deceptive business practices. Industry or regulatory sanctions can result from violating the laws and regulations that govern data privacy and protection, such as the GDPR, the CCPA, or the GLBA.These sanctions can include fines, penalties, injunctions, or revocation of licenses. Charges of deceptive business practices can arise from misleading or false statements about how the organization collects, uses, or discloses personal data, or from failing to comply with its own privacy policies and procedures. These charges can lead to lawsuits, settlements, or enforcement actions by authorities such as the FTC or the state attorneys general.

A compliance officer should communicate with regulatory and law enforcement authorities in line with applicable local laws during an ongoing investigation into a client’s activities by a competent authority. This is because the compliance officer has a duty to cooperate with the authorities and provide relevant information and documents as requested, while also protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the client and the institution. The compliance officer should not restrict the communication to senior management only, as this could hinder the investigation or create a perception of obstruction. The compliance officer should not communicate only in writing, as this could limit the effectiveness and timeliness of the communication. The compliance officer should not limit the communication to the absolute minimum, as this could imply a lack of cooperation or transparency.

The Egmont Group’s 100 Cases1, the Financial Action Task Force Typologies2, and FinCEN’s SAR Activity Review3 are all sources of information related to money laundering trends, methods, and risks. They provide examples, analysis, and guidance on how to detect, prevent, and report money laundering and other financial crimes. The Wolfsberg Principles4, on the other hand, are a set of global standards for the prevention of moneylaundering in the correspondent banking and private banking sectors. They are not intended to provide information on money laundering trends, but rather to establish best practices and minimum requirements for financial institutions to comply with anti-money laundering regulations and expectations.

 According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the insurance products that is particularly vulnerable to money laundering is annuity, which is “a contract that provides a series of payments over a specified period of time, usually for the life of the annuitant” (p. 223). Annuities can be used by money launderers to deposit large sums of illicit funds in a single transaction, or to receive regular payments from a legitimate source after paying the premiums with dirty money. Annuities can also be surrendered or transferred to third parties, making it difficult to trace the origin and destination of funds.

These are the information that can help the correspondent bank to assess the risk profile, the regulatory compliance, and the operational capacity of the respondent bank, and to verify its identity and legitimacy. The correspondent bank should obtain and verify the following information about the respondent bank:

Respondent’s management, nature of license, and major business activity. This can help the correspondent bank to understand the governance, the legal status, and the core functions of the respondent bank, and to evaluate its reputation, integrity, and competence.

The quality of supervision in the home country. This can help the correspondent bank to determine the level of oversight and regulation that the respondent bank is subject to, and to identify any potential gaps or weaknesses in the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework of the home country.

Respondent’s location, in particular the existence of a real physical presence. This can help the correspondent bank to verify the actual existence and operation of the respondent bank, and to avoid dealing with shell banks or banks located in high-risk or non-cooperative jurisdictions.

The other option is not necessarily information that should be included to establish a rigorous “Know Your Respondent” procedure, although it may have some relevance or importance depending on the circumstances and the nature of the correspondent relationship. Option 2 describes computer equipment and software capability, which may be useful to assess the technical and operational compatibility and efficiency of the respondent bank, but it is not essential to evaluate its risk or compliance level.

 According to the FATF Recommendation 12, financial institutions should take reasonable measures to determine whether the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy and/or, where required, the beneficial owner of the beneficiary are politically exposed persons. This should occur at the latest at the time of the payout1. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the abuse of life insurance products for money laundering or terrorist financing by PEPs or their associates. Therefore, the best way to mitigate the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP is to perform due diligence on the beneficiary, such as verifying their identity, relationship with the PEP, and source of funds2.

The other options are not correct because they either do not comply with the FATF standards, or do not adequately address the risk of adding a beneficiary to a life insurance policy for a foreign PEP. Determining the source of wealth and source of funds is a measure that should be applied to the PEP as the customer, not the beneficiary, as partof the enhanced due diligence process2. Declining the request if the beneficiary is a foreign PEP may not be feasible or proportional, as not all foreign PEPs are involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, and some may have legitimate reasons to add a beneficiary to their life insurance policy. Declining the request to add a beneficiary due to increased risk may also not be feasible or proportional, as it may violate the contractual rights of the PEP as the customer, and may not be necessary if the due diligence on the beneficiary does not reveal any red flags or suspicions.

According to the Basel Committee’s paper on Customer Due Diligence for Banks1, banks should review their existing customer relationships on a regular basis, especially for higher risk categories of customers or business relationships. This includes identifying whether the customer or the beneficial owner is a PEP, either at the account opening stage or later, as a result of a change in the customer’s circumstances or profile. The paper also states that banks should apply a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate level and type of due diligence depending on the risk profile of the customer or the beneficial owner.

 The investigator should escalate these concerns to the bank anti-money laundering officer, who is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the bank’s AML/CFT policies and procedures, as well as ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The bank anti-money laundering officer can then decide on the appropriate course of action, such as conducting further investigation, reporting to the regulators, or terminating the relationship with the customer. The other options are not suitable for escalating these concerns, as they may not have the authority, expertise, or responsibility to handle such matters.

The specialist should recommend directing the teller (cashier) to file a suspicious transaction report (STR). This is because the teller (cashier) has failed to comply with thebank’s internal policies and procedures for reporting unusual or suspicious activity, which is a key component of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program1. The teller (cashier) should have filed an internal report of unusual activity assoon as he or she noticed the suspicious transactions, regardless of the personal circumstances or the length of service of the customer involved2. Failing to do so could expose the bank to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, or legal liability3.

The other options are not appropriate recommendations for the specialist to make in this situation. Continuing to monitor the accounts is not sufficient, as it does not address the past non-compliance or the potential money laundering risk posed by the suspicious transactions. Refreshing anti-money laundering training for the teller (cashier) is not enough, as it does not ensure that the teller (cashier) will report the suspicioustransactions or prevent future violations. Suspending the teller’s (cashier’s) employment is too harsh, as it does not take into account the teller’s (cashier’s) long and exemplary work record, the personal hardship faced by the teller’s (cashier’s) family, or the possibility of remedial actions or corrective measures4.

A money remittance business will most likely attract money launderers because it deals primarily in cash transactions, engages in international transactions, and conducts transactions for walk-in customers. These factors make money remittance businesses vulnerable to money laundering risks, such as:

Cash transactions: Cash is the preferred medium of exchange for money launderers, as it is anonymous, untraceable, and easily convertible. Money remittance businesses often deal with large amounts of cash, which can be used to place, layer, or integrate illicit funds into the financial system. Cash transactions also pose challenges for customer identification, record keeping, and transaction monitoring.

International transactions: Money remittance businesses facilitate cross-border transfers of funds, which can be used to move illicit funds from one jurisdiction to another, or to obscure the origin, destination, or purpose of the funds. International transactions also involve exposure to different legal, regulatory, and cultural environments, which may create inconsistencies or gaps in anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) standards and practices.

Walk-in customers: Money remittance businesses often serve walk-in customers, who may not have an established relationship with the business, or who may use false or incomplete identification documents. Walk-in customers also increase the volume and complexity of transactions, which may make it difficult to detect suspicious or unusual activity, or to apply risk-based due diligence measures.

 Before disclosing any supporting documentation for a suspicious transaction report (STR) to a law enforcement agency, the financial institution should confirm thatthe request is legitimate and authorized by verifying the identity and credentials of the requester1. This is to prevent unauthorized access or misuse of the confidential information by impostors or fraudsters. The other options are not true, as they may either compromise the security, integrity, or timeliness of the disclosure, or violate the confidentiality or privacy rights of the customer.

The correct answer is A and D, as these two statements are directly quoted from the Wolfsberg Group’s “Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism” document1. Statement A describes the general role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism, while statement D describes the specific due diligence measures that financial institutions should apply to customers engaged in high-risk sectors or activities. Statement B and C are not part of the Wolfsberg Group’s document, and they are not accurate descriptions of the role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism. Statement B is too vague and unrealistic, as financial institutions cannot guarantee to drive down terrorism by analyzing activity types. Statement C is too narrow and prescriptive, as financial institutions may not have the resources or the mandate to create dedicated financial intelligence units for terrorist financing.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued a paper in October 2001 titled Customer due diligence for banks, which outlined four essential elements of a sound Know Your Customer (KYC) programme. These elements are: customer acceptance policy, customer identification, on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts, and risk management. The paper also recommended that these standards should be applicable to all banks in all countries, regardless of their size, nature, or location. The paper stated that "KYC safeguards go beyond simple account opening and record-keeping and require banks to formulate a customer acceptance policy and a tiered customer identification programme that involves more extensive due diligence for higher risk accounts, and includes proactive account monitoring for suspicious activities."1

U.S. law requires that assets and accounts of an OFAC-specified country, entity, or individual be blocked when such property is located in the United States, is held by U.S. individuals or entities, or comes into the possession or control of U.S. individuals or entities.

For example, if a funds transfer comes from offshore and is being routed through a U.S. bank to an offshore bank, and there is an OFAC-designated party to the transaction, it must be blocked. The definition of assets and property is broad and is specifically defined within each sanction program. Assets and property includes anything of direct, indirect, present, future, or contingent value (including all types of bank transactions). Banks must block transactions that:

• Are by or on behalf of a blocked individual or entity;

• Are to or go through a blocked entity; or

• Are in connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity has an interest.

 According to the BSA/AML Manual1, one purpose of filing SARs is to identify violations or potential violations of law to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for criminal investigation. Therefore, when an institution receives a document request from law enforcement with regard to an STR that the institution has filed, it should cooperate and provide the documents that were previously collected to support the STR. This will help the law enforcement agency to conduct its investigation and follow up on the suspicious activity reported by the institution. The institution should also maintain the confidentiality of the STR and the document request, and avoid tipping off the customer or any other person involved in the suspicious activity.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, countries should implement measures to prevent the abuse of non-profit organizations (NPOs) for the financing of terrorism. One of these measures is to ensure that NPOs cannot be used to conceal or obscure the diversion of funds intended for legitimate purposes to terrorists’ organizations. This means that countries should have effective mechanisms to monitor and supervise NPOs, especially those that are at risk of terrorist financing abuse, and to take appropriate actions against NPOs that are involved in such activities. Countries should also ensure that NPOs maintain adequate records of their activities and transactions, and that these records are accessible to competent authorities. Furthermore, countries should promote transparency and accountability in the NPO sector, and encourage NPOs to conduct due diligence on their donors, beneficiaries, and associates.

The FATF communicates its findings regardingjurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies by issuing two formal documents three times per year, namely the FATF Public Statement and the Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: On-going Process document1. These documents identify the jurisdictions that have serious and/or systemic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes and the progress they have made in addressing them. The FATF also calls on its members and other jurisdictions to apply counter-measures or enhanced due diligence measures to protect the international financial system from the risks emanating from these jurisdictions1.

Enhanced due diligence (EDD) is a higher level of customer due diligence that is required for customers or accounts that pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. According to the FATF Recommendations, EDD measures may include obtaining additional information on the customer, the beneficial owner, the intended nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of funds, and the reasons for transactions. EDD is also required for customers or accounts that are from or in countries that do not have adequate AML/CFT systems or are subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Among the four categories of customers or accounts listed in the question, lawyers, foreign exchange dealers, and precious metal dealers are considered as high-risk by the FATF and other international standards, and therefore require EDD. Lawyers may be involved in transactions that conceal the origin or ownership of illicit funds, such as creating shell companies, trusts, or foundations. Foreign exchange dealers may facilitate the movement of illicit funds across borders or jurisdictions, or provide anonymous or pseudonymous services. Precious metal dealers may deal with high-value goods that are easily convertible into cash, or may be used to launder proceeds of crime or evade sanctions.

Retail account holders, on the other hand, are generally considered as low-risk customers or accounts, unless they exhibit unusual or suspicious behavior or transactions. Therefore, they do not require EDD by default, but only when there are specific indicators of higher risk.

A large cash deposit is a potential indicator of money laundering, especially if it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile or behavior. Therefore, the bank should ask the customer about the source and purpose of the funds, and verify the information if possible. In this case, the customer claims to have sold a used car and received cash, which may be a reasonable explanation. However, the bank should not rely solely on the customer’s statement, but should also monitor the account for any further cash transactions or suspicious activity that may indicate money laundering. For example, the bank should check if the customer withdraws the cash soon after the deposit, transfers the funds to other accounts or jurisdictions, or engages in structuring or smurfing to avoid reporting thresholds.

The bank should not do nothing, as this may expose the bank to regulatory or reputational risks, or facilitate money laundering. The bank should also not file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) unless there are other grounds to suspect money laundering, as this may be premature or unnecessary. The bank should not close the account before another issues arise, as this may be disproportionate or discriminatory, and may also alert the customer to the bank’s suspicion.