CAMS-FCI ACAMS Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

The correct answer is A because this scenario describes a possible case of human trafficking, which is a crime where people are exploited for labor or sexual services against their will. Human traffickers may use bank accounts to launder their proceeds and pay their victims, and they may use fake or stolen identities to avoid detection. The other options are not likely because they do not explain why multiple deposits from the same employer under different employees’ names would occur, nor why cash withdrawals would follow each deposit.

References: : Human Trafficking, : Human Trafficking Red Flags

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

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

This information can be found in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) study guide, 6th edition, under the section on Unusual Customer Identification Scenarios. The guide explains that two indicators that should be included in awareness training for unusual customer identification scenarios are:

A. The customer opens the account in the name of a family member who begins making large deposits.

This is an indicator of potential structuring, where a customer may be attempting to avoid triggering reporting thresholds by depositing funds in smaller amounts over time. It is important for staff to be aware of this scenario and to monitor accounts for potential suspicious activity.

B. The customer's name and home address cannot be verified.

This is an indicator of potential identity theft or other fraudulent activity. If a customer's identifying information cannot be verified, it is important for staff to conduct additional due diligence to ensure that the customer is legitimate and that the account is not being used for illicit purposes.

The Asian/Pacific Financial Action Task Force-Style Regional Body (APG) helps its members implement recommendations from the FATF by facilitating the adoption and implementation of internationally accepted AML measures by member jurisdictions (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 22). The APG also encourages cooperative AML efforts in the region, which can include information-sharing and mutual evaluations to assess member compliance with FATF recommendations (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 25). Therefore, options C and D are the correct answers.

The data points that the compliance team should include in its data analytics program to detect shell or front company red flags are entities whose principal place of business is a non-residential address and entities transacting with or having relation to tax haven or high-risk countries. These data points may indicate that the entities are not conducting legitimate business activities, but rather are used to conceal the identity or location of the true beneficiaries or owners, or to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, or other illicit activities. Some of the sources that support these data points as red flags are4567:

Entities whose principal place of business is a non-residential address may indicate that they have no physical presence, operations, assets, or employees. They may use addresses such as post office boxes, mail forwarding services, registered agents, or virtual offices to avoid detection or scrutiny.

Entities transacting with or having relation to tax haven or high-risk countries may indicate that they are involved in offshore financial activities that are designed to evade taxes, regulations, or sanctions. They may also be exposed to higher risks of money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, or fraud.

References:

How to Identify a Shell Company and the Associated Red Flags

Difference between Shell, Shelf & Front Company | Sigma Ratings

Shell Companies and Money Laundering | ComplyAdvantage

General Comments Incorporation of shell companies - Singapore Police Force

The correct answer is A because the expected account activities were 1 to 5 transactions per year and around 1 million per transaction amount, but the actual activity showed much more frequent and varied transactions in different currencies and amounts. This indicates a deviation from the customer’s profile and risk level.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 16

The best information to share at the very beginning of a well-written SAR/STR narrative is the purpose of the SAR/STR narrative and a general description of the known or alleged violation. This is because this information provides an overview of why the SAR/STR is being filed and what type of suspicious activity or transaction is involved. It also helps to capture the attention of the reader and set the tone for the rest of the narrative.

References: Reporting Suspicious Activity Certificate, Module 4, page 7.

The primary purposes of Financial Action Task Force (FATF)-Style Regional Bodies are to promote effective implementation of FATF recommendations and to provide expertise and input in FATF policy-making. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 180)

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

The name, nationality, and country of residence of each beneficial owner.

The date of birth or incorporation of each beneficial owner.

The nature and extent of the beneficial interest held by each beneficial owner.

The means by which the beneficial ownership or control is exercised.

References:

FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership

The correct answer is C. Escalate to the compliance officer/money laundering reporting officer to file a SAR/STR. This is because the financial crime investigator has found evidence of fraudulent documents and false information, which indicate a high risk of money laundering or other financial crimes. The investigator should not contact the client directly, as this may tip them off or compromise the investigation. The investigator should also not report collusion between the cryptocurrency exchange and internal staff, as this is an assumption that has not been verified. The investigator should not request a CDD refresh, as this is not sufficient to address the serious issues identified.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 291

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 311

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 331

1: https://www.acams.org/en/certifications/advanced-cams/advanced-financial-crimes-investigations

The investigator should proceed in this situation by conducting the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP (A) and sending a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date (D). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to continue their analysis of the suspicious activity without being biased by the potential PEP status of the customer’s relative, and they ensure that the FI has accurate and current information about its customers and their associates. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries” (p. 24). The FI should also “update the customer profile with any new information obtained during the investigation” (p. 25).

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not refer the newly identified customer’s account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP (B), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP (E), as this could also be premature or unnecessary, as well as potentially misleading or inaccurate. The investigator should not use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process ©, as this could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or their relative of the suspicion.

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

The investigator should review how the wire transfers were initiated first, because this could indicate the level of involvement and knowledge of the LLC account holders. If the wire transfers were initiated online or by phone, it could suggest that the account holders were trying to avoid face-to-face contact with the bank staff and reduce the chances of being questioned or identified. If the wire transfers were initiated in person at a branch, it could indicate that the account holders were confident or careless about their activities, or that they had some relationship with the bank staff. The method of initiation could also affect the quality and quantity of information collected by the bank about the wire transfers, such as the purpose, source, and destination of the funds. References: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, page 65.

The correct answer is C and E. The investigator should provide additional information to the LE upon receiving a formal request, and gather all the information that would be useful for LE and recommend filing a SAR/STR. These steps are consistent with the best practices of conducting financial crime investigations and reporting suspicious activity. The investigator should not close the customer’s accounts or the investigation, as this may interfere with the ongoing LE inquiry and violate the FI’s policies and procedures. The investigator should also not contact local LE directly, as this may compromise the confidentiality of the investigation and the FIU’s authority. References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, Chapter 4: Reporting Suspicious Activity, pages 40-411

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, Chapter 5: Governance of an AFC Investigations Unit, pages 48-491

Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS

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

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS

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

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

The correct answer is C because the FI is unable to obtain evidence of required licensing or registration despite suspicion of money transmitting, which is a red flag for money laundering and a violation of federal and state laws. Option A is incorrect because making several deposits in one month that appear to exceed their expected monthly income might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s profile and source of funds. Option B is incorrect because receiving a large, one-time wire from a law firm might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s relationship with the law firm and the purpose of the wire. Option D is incorrect because discovering a large number of securities transactions that appear to be related to day trading might not be indicative of suspicious activity, depending on the customer’s investment strategy and risk tolerance.

References: Money transmitter - Wikipedia; The Quick Guide To Money Transmitter Licenses - Surety Bond Insider; Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate Certificate, Module 3.

The step that the investigator should take next is to flag the nephew as a PEP by association (D). This is because the nephew is related to a general who is a senior military official and a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners” (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.

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

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

The investigator should recommend a SAR/STR be filed regarding the second client’s use of a questionable trust to open an account, as this could indicate an attempt to conceal the source and ownership of funds, and to evade taxes and sanctions. The investigator should also monitor all accounts and entities related to the second client, as they may be involved in illegal activities or pose a high risk to the FI. The investigator should not review all accounts that have opened trust accounts, as this would be too broad and inefficient. The investigator should not inform FI management of deficiencies in their AML program, as this is not their role or responsibility. The investigator should not inform FI management of the start of a serious risk-based investigation, as this may compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the investigation.

Some of the negative impacts of illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes are loss of potential tax proceeds and threats to biodiversity. Loss of potential tax proceeds occurs when illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes evade taxation and customs duties, depriving governments of revenues that could be used for public services and development. Threats to biodiversity occur when illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes endanger species, habitats, and ecosystems, reducing their resilience and ability to provide essential services for human well-being. Public health consequences and threats to a country’s political stability are not directly related to illegal wildlife trade and environmental crimes, but rather to other types of financial crimes such as money laundering, terrorism financing, or corruption.

References: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 68-69; [FATF Report on Money Laundering from Environmental Crime], page 9-10.