CAMS ACAMS Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS7 the 7th edition) Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

One of the central pillars of the EU AML Package adopted in June 2024 is theEU AML Regulation. This regulation introduces directly applicable AML/CFT rules across all EU member states, replacing the previous approach where AML directives were transposed into national laws. This shift addresses regulatory fragmentation and strengthens enforcement across borders.

The complete AML Package includes the following four pillars:

EU AML Regulation (directly applicable rulebook)

6th AML Directive (not the 7th)

Establishment of a new EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA)

Revised Transfer of Funds Regulation, especially concerning crypto-asset service providers

The EU AML Regulation aims to unify and streamline the application of AML/CFT measures across the EU, ensuring a consistent and effective framework.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies support the risk-based approach (RBA) to AML compliance by enhancing an institution’s ability to identify, assess, and prioritize financial crime risks. Regulatory guidance emphasizes that these technologies should augment—not replace—human judgment.

One key benefit is advanced customer risk assessment. AI and ML can synthesize large volumes of customer data, including background information, transaction behavior, and external risk indicators, allowing institutions to develop more accurate and dynamic risk profiles.

AI and ML also enable the identification of complex networks among seemingly unrelated clients. Through network analytics and pattern recognition, these tools can uncover hidden relationships used in layering and structuring activities.

Additionally, AI-driven systems excel at detecting complex money laundering patterns within transaction data that may not trigger traditional rule-based alerts, improving effectiveness and efficiency.

Automatically generating SARs or adapting thresholds without human oversight is inconsistent with regulatory expectations. Human review and governance remain essential components of AML compliance.

The finance industry is inherently vulnerable to money laundering risks due to the nature, scale, and complexity of its operations. FATF and global regulators consistently identify several structural characteristics that increase exposure to illicit financial activity.

One major vulnerability is the availability of complex financial products and services, such as derivatives, correspondent banking, and structured investments. These products can be misused to disguise the origin of funds through layering and complex transaction chains.

Another key risk arises from engagement with high-risk jurisdictions. Financial institutions often operate across borders, including in countries with weak AML controls or limited regulatory oversight, increasing exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Additionally, high transaction volumes present a significant challenge. The sheer scale and speed of transactions make it difficult to detect suspicious activity, particularly when illicit transactions are deliberately structured to blend in with legitimate activity.

In contrast, heightened regulatory obligations and investments in technology are risk-mitigating factors, not vulnerabilities. They are designed to reduce exposure to financial crime rather than increase it.

As part of a risk-based approach, the bank should apply tailored due diligence measures based on the assessed risk level of each customer. This ensures resources are focused where they are most needed, rather than applying uniform enhanced measures to all customers, which can be inefficient and unnecessary.

D: “Cooperation and coordination between regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, and FIUs are essential for effective AML investigations, especially in cross-border cases. This is often accomplished through formal agreements, MOUs, and information-sharing mechanisms.”(CAMS 6th Edition, International Cooperation in AML/CFT; FATF Recommendations 36-40)

A robust transaction monitoring system is a core component of an effective Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Financial Crime (AFC) program. Regulatory guidance from FATF and national supervisors emphasizes that the primary purpose of transaction monitoring systems is to detect unusual or suspicious activity by analyzing customer transactions and identifying anomalies or patterns that may indicate money laundering, terrorist financing, or other financial crimes.

These systems use predefined rules, thresholds, and increasingly advanced analytics to monitor transactions in real time or retrospectively. Alerts generated by the system are reviewed by compliance professionals, who determine whether further investigation or reporting is required.

While transaction monitoring systems may support the preparation of regulatory reports, such as SARs or CTRs, the actual filing of these reports typically requires human review and approval and is not the defining capability of the monitoring system itself. Features such as automatic document translation or integration of social media profiles are not considered core or necessary functions under AML regulatory expectations.

Therefore, the essential capability of a robust transaction monitoring system is its ability to monitor transactions and detect anomalies indicative of suspicious activity.

High-risk customers present elevated money laundering and terrorist financing risks, requiring careful consideration before onboarding. FATF guidance emphasizes that higher-risk relationships demand stronger controls due to their increased vulnerability to misuse.

One key risk is the greater potential for laundering illicit proceeds. High-risk customers may operate in sectors, jurisdictions, or business models that are frequently abused for financial crime, increasing the likelihood that illicit funds could pass through the institution.

Another significant risk is the increased likelihood of involvement in financial crimes, either directly or indirectly. This may include exposure to corruption, fraud, sanctions evasion, or organized crime networks.

Enhanced due diligence is not a risk but rather a risk-mitigating control imposed by regulators. Reduced regulatory scrutiny is incorrect, as high-risk customers are subject to greater—not lesser—oversight.

Key challenges in adopting new AML/CFT technologies are:

A: Data privacy—new tech often requires processing more personal data, raising privacy/regulatory concerns.

C: The Travel Rule—meeting global standards for information sharing in payments is a technology challenge.

D: Data quality—effective systems rely on accurate, comprehensive, timely data.

E: Complexity—integrating and managing new technology can increase operational complexity.(CAMS 6th Edition, Technology in AML/CFT; FATF Guidance on Digital ID and Fintech)

Effective AML/CFT policies, controls, and procedures must be risk-based, proportionate, and well-governed, as emphasized by FATF and national regulators. Proportionality ensures that controls are appropriate to the firm’s size, complexity, products, services, and risk exposure.

Senior management approval is essential to establish accountability and tone from the top. Regular review ensures policies remain effective as risks, regulations, and business models evolve.

AML responsibility is shared across the three lines of defense, not owned solely by the business. External validation may support assurance but does not replace internal accountability. While technology can enhance controls, regulators do not mandate the use of advanced or cutting-edge solutions; effectiveness and governance are more important than sophistication.

D: NGOs play an important role in raising awareness about money laundering, lobbying for strong AML/CFT laws, and educating the public and stakeholders about the risks and consequences.

“NGOs help combat money laundering primarily through advocacy, education, and raising public and industry awareness.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Role of NGOs in AML/CFT)

Data encryption protects sensitive information from unauthorized access, while privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) enable secure and compliant data sharing with third parties, helping financial institutions meet privacy and data protection regulations.

OFAC sanctions are a key element of the U.S. AML/CFT framework. According to the CAMS 6th Edition and OFAC regulations:

Blocked funds must be placed into an interest-bearing account on a financial institution's books (B):“Blocked property must be held in a separate interest-bearing account on the books of the U.S. financial institution.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance; OFAC FAQs)

Sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective using the blocking of assets and trade restrictions (C):“OFAC administers both comprehensive and targeted (selective) sanctions programs to fulfill U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Sanctions Compliance)

Incorrect Options:

A: OFAC can sanction entities, vessels, and organizations—not just individuals or those in foreign countries.

D: There is no automatic expiration of OFAC sanctions after five years.

B: When a subpoena is received, the institution should first consult with legal counsel to ensure the validity and scope of the subpoena. Compliance with law enforcement requests is mandatory and subject to strict legal obligations. All documentation and responses should be properly recorded.

“A subpoena requires a legal response; consult legal counsel to validate the request and respond as required by law.”

FinCEN 314(b) information-sharing requests are voluntary and can proceed only after fulfilling required legal steps, such as verifying membership in the program and ensuring information-sharing agreements are in place.

CAMS 6th Edition clarifies that “under no circumstances should a customer be notified of a law enforcement inquiry or subpoena.”

Weak KYC policies and procedures represent a broader and more systemic risk specific to casinos and gambling. Without strong KYC, it becomes easier for individuals to engage in money laundering by exploiting anonymity and lack of oversight, regardless of transaction size or method.

Real estate ML/TF risk is highest where transparency is low or the origin of funds is obscured:

Use of cash to purchase property (A):“All-cash transactions in real estate present a high ML risk, as they bypass traditional financial scrutiny and facilitate the placement of illicit funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate Money Laundering Risks)

Use of a company for the purchase of property (D):“Purchasing property through companies, especially shell companies, can conceal the beneficial owner and the true source of funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate ML/TF Risks; FATF, Real Estate Sector)

Incorrect Options:

B: Unlicensed agents may be risky, but the core risks are A and D.

C: Trusts may add complexity but are less common/high-risk than company structures.

E: Value manipulation is risky but less so than the above.