CAMS ACAMS Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

All of the three options reflect money laundering risk indicators in relation to a securities account, as they could suggest attempts to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds, or to avoid detection or reporting by authorities. According to the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Securities Sector1, some of the common indicators of money laundering in securities transactions include:

A high level of activity in securities accounts inconsistent with the customer’s profile or investment objectives

Frequent or large movements of funds between accounts or institutions, especially involving high-risk jurisdictions or offshore locations

Use of debit cards or other payment instruments to access funds from securities accounts

Use of complex or unusual transactions or structures without apparent economic or legal purpose

 1 FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Securities Sector, pages 43-44.

 it describes the organization that a national Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) should consider becoming a member of, which is the Egmont Group. The Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that was established in 1995 to facilitate the exchange of financial intelligence and information among its members, and to promote cooperation and coordination in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The Egmont Group currently has 166 member FIUs from different jurisdictions, and provides them with various benefits, such as access to secure communication channels, bestpractices, training, and technical assistance. The Egmont Group also works closely with other international organizations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the United Nations, and the World Bank, to enhance the global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework.

The other options are not necessarily organizations that a national FIU should consider becoming a member of, although they may have some relevance or influence on the AML/CTF field. Option B describes the Wolfsberg Group, which is an association of 13 global banks that was formed in 2000 to develop standards and guidance for the financial industry on AML/CTF and other financial crime issues. The Wolfsberg Group is not an organization for FIUs, but rather for financial institutions. Option C describes the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is an inter-governmental body that was established in 1989 to set the international standards and recommendations for AML/CTF and to monitor the compliance and effectiveness of its members and other jurisdictions. The FATF is not an organization for FIUs, but rather for governments and policy-makers. Option D describes the Basel Committee, which is a forum of central bank governors and heads of banking supervision authorities from 28 jurisdictions that was established in 1974 to enhance the quality and consistency of banking supervision and regulation. The Basel Committee is not an organization for FIUs, but rather for banking regulators and supervisors.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pages 108-109

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-5.pdf

Lawyers who lack experience in providing specific services requested by clients or receive unusually high fees can raise red flags for money laundering. Inadequate documentation of case notes may also be suspicious, but the absence of experience and excessive fees are more significant indicators. These behaviors warrant further scrutiny to assess potential money laundering risks12.

 A beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity or arrangement, such as a company, a trust, or a foundation. Identifying the beneficial owner is essential for preventing and detecting money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and other illicit activities that may involve the misuse of corporate vehicles. However, some individuals or entities may attempt to conceal the true beneficial ownership of a company by using various techniques, such as complex ownership structures, shell companies, bearer shares, or nominees. A nominee is a person or an entity that acts on behalf of another person or entity, usually for a fee or a commission, without disclosing the identity of the real owner or controller. Nominees can be used to protect or conceal the identity of the beneficial owner and controller of a company or asset. A nominee can help overcome jurisdictional controls on company ownership and circumvent directorship bans imposed by courts and government authorities. While the appointment of nominees is lawful in most countries, the use of nominees for money laundering purposes is illegal and a red flag for suspicious activity. Therefore, the person filling out an application on the company’s behalf indicating that a beneficial owner is a nominee for another person not named in the company’s documentation is an indicator that there is an attempt to conceal the company’s true beneficial ownership12.

The other options are not necessarily indicators of concealment of beneficial ownership, as they may have legitimate explanations or reasons. The company having a subsidiary in another jurisdiction with a local investor as a beneficial owner may be a normal business practice or a strategic decision, as long as the ownership information is transparent and accurate. Recent changes to the company’s ownership structure may reflect the company’s growth, development, or adaptation to market conditions, as long as they are documented and reported to the relevant authorities. Beneficial ownership information from the time that the company was formed several years ago not matching the current information may be due to natural changes in the company’s shareholders, directors, or managers, as long as they are updated and verified periodically.

According to the ACAMS study guide, one of the training elements that should be delivered to new tellers during employee orientation is “large cash transaction reporting procedures” (p. 224). This is because tellers are often the first line of defense against money laundering and have the responsibility to identify and report any transactions that exceed the threshold of $10,000 or are otherwise suspicious. The other options are not relevant for tellers, as they are more suitable for higher-level or specialized staff.

ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination for Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (6th ed.). Miami, FL: ACAMS.

AML Requirements for Tellers 1

Deposit Compliance Training Courses 2

As the compliance officer is providing overview of the "bank's anti-money laundering program to a group of new tellers during employee orientation"

A risk-based compliance program is one that identifies and prioritizes the highest compliance risks to the FI and implements controls, policies and procedures to mitigate them. A data-based option is the most suitable for a risk-based compliance program, as it allows the FI to collect, analyze and monitor relevant data on its customers, transactions, products, services, geographies and other risk factors. A data-based option also enables the FI to measure the effectiveness of its compliance program and adjust it as needed to respond to changing risks and regulatory expectations12.

1: Risk-Based Approach to Compliance Management2

2: A Risk-Based Approach to Regulatory Compliance1

The first Financial Action Task Force (FATF) initiative was the 40 Recommendations on Money Laundering, which were issued in April 1990, less than a year after the FATF was established by the G7 summit in Paris in 1989. The 40 Recommendations aimed to provide a comprehensive plan of action to fight money laundering by setting out the principles and measures for effective legal, regulatory, and operational frameworks at the national and international levels. The 40 Recommendations have been revised and updated several times since then, most recently in 2022, to reflect the evolving trends and techniques of money laundering and to include the issues of terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The other options are not the first FATF initiative, but they are related to the FATF’s work and mandate. The Report on Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCTs) was launched in 2000 to identify and monitor the jurisdictions that did not comply with the FATF standards and posed a risk to the international financial system. The Report on Money Laundering Typologies was first published in 1996 and has been updated annually to provide an analysis of the methods, techniques, and trends of money launderingand to assist the FATF members and observers in developing effective countermeasures. The Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing were issued in October 2001, following the September 11 attacks, to complement the 40 Recommendations and to address the specific challenges of combating the financing of terrorism and terrorist acts.

History of the FATF, 1

Financial Action Task Force - Wikipedia, 2

Financial Action Task Force (FATF): What it is, How it Works - Investopedia, 3

The FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE (FATF) - INSIGHTSIAS, 4

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), substantial growth in wealth during a short period of time is a red flag for money laundering or terrorist financing. Additionally, when a client is a family member of a politically exposed person (PEP) from a country known for corruption, it raises concerns about the potential for corruption, bribery, or influence peddling. In this case, the client's father became the president of Country B, which makes him a PEP.

Concentration accounts are internal accounts used by financial institutions to aggregate funds from or for various clients or other accounts. They are also known as omnibus accounts or suspense accounts. The use of concentration accounts may obscure the audit trail and the identity of the clients involved in the transactions. Therefore, the Wolfsberg Principles on Private Banking, which are a set of voluntary guidelines for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing in the private banking sector, prohibit the use of concentration accounts in a way that would prevent appropriate monitoring or identification of the clients or their funds12.

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 4.3 2: The Wolfsberg Principles - an analysis, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 7 No. 3, 2004, pp. 237-240

 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.

1: What is the FATF? | FATF

2: High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action | FATF

3: Guidance on Counter Proliferation Financing - The Implementation of Financial Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions to Counter the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction | FATF

 A financial institution located in a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) member country should address the following issues in its anti-money laundering program when dealing with customers located in countries/jurisdictions that are not members of FATF:

The requirement to identify the beneficial owners of accounts: Beneficial owners are the natural persons who ultimately own or control a customer or a legal entity. Identifying the beneficial owners of accounts is a key component of customer due diligence (CDD) and helps the financial institution to assess the risk profile of the customer, prevent the misuse of legal entities for money laundering or terrorist financing, and comply with the FATF Recommendations12.

The requirement for customer identification for the opening of new accounts: Customer identification is the process of verifying the identity of a customer using reliable and independent sources of information or documents. Customer identification is another essential element of CDD and helps the financial institution to establish a business relationship with the customer, prevent identity fraud, and comply with the FATF Recommendations13.

The financial institution’s obligation to report suspicious transactions: Suspicious transactions are transactions that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose, or are inconsistent with the customer’s known profile or business activities, or indicate involvement in money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting suspicious transactions to the competent authorities is a core obligation of the financial institution under the FATF Recommendations14 and helps to detect and deter illicit activities and support law enforcement investigations.

The obligation to freeze funds involved in suspicious transactions is not an issue that should be addressed in the anti-money laundering program, as it is not a requirement under the FATF Recommendations. The FATF Recommendations require the financial institution to freeze funds or other assets of designated persons and entities that are subject to targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or other threats to the international financial system1 . However, the financial institution is not obliged to freeze funds involved in suspicious transactions, unless it receives a specific order from the competent authorities or the courts.

The FATF Recommendations, as amended November 2023

Interpretive Note to Recommendation 10 (Customer Due Diligence), paragraphs 5(b) and 6

Recommendation 10 (Customer Due Diligence), paragraph 1

Recommendation 20 (Reporting of Suspicious Transactions)

Recommendation 6 (Targeted Financial Sanctions Related to Terrorism and Terrorist Financing), Recommendation 7 (Targeted Financial Sanctions Related to Proliferation), and Recommendation 8 (Non-Profit Organisations)

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the common methods of money laundering in the insurance sector is to purchase policies with illicit funds, overpay premiums, and then cancel or surrender the policies to receive refunds or payouts1. This allows criminals to move and disguise the source of their funds through the insurance company. Therefore, the regular withdrawals from the policy by the end of the month could indicate a money laundering scheme. Moreover, the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector states that unidentified third parties depositing cash to the policy could also pose a high money laundering risk, as cash transactions are difficult to trace and third parties may act as intermediaries or nominees for the real beneficiaries2. Therefore, the insurance company should conduct enhanced due diligence on the policyholder and the third parties, and monitor the transactions for any suspicious activity.

In theEuropean Union (EU), data protection laws (GDPR) and AML regulations (AMLDs) must be balancedwhen sharing customer data.

Option D (Correct):Data sharing must be"necessary, reasonable, and proportionate,"followingAML regulations and data protection requirements.

Option A (Incorrect):While data protection laws apply,AML/CFT regulations provide exemptionsfor legitimate investigations.

Option B (Incorrect):Aformal production orderis not always required if information sharing islegally permitted under AML regulations.

Option C (Incorrect):Privacy laws still apply, even in financial crime investigations. AML/CFT obligations donot override GDPRbut must be balanced appropriately.

Key Considerations in Cross-Border AML Data Sharing in the EU:

GDPR & AML Regulations Must Align:TheGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)protects customer privacy, but theEU Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLDs) require data sharing for AML purposes.

Proportionality Principle:Anydata shared must be strictly limited to what is necessaryfor AML purposes (e.g., transaction details but not unnecessary personal data).

Regulatory Guidance:Banks must comply withArticle 23 of GDPR, which allowsexceptions for AML compliance.

Why This Matters:

Failure toproperly balance AML compliance and data privacycan lead to:

Regulatory fines under GDPRfor data breaches.

AML penaltiesfor failing to cooperate in financial crime investigations.

According to the Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, a shell bank is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated and licensed, and which is unaffiliated with a regulated financial group that is subject to effective consolidated supervision. Physical presence means meaningful mind and management located within a country. The existence simply of a local agent or low level staff does not constitute physical presence. Therefore, a shell bank meets the criteria A, B, and D, as it does not conduct business at a fixed address, does not employ one or more individuals or maintain operating records at that address, and is not subject to inspection by the banking authority that licensed it. Criterion C is not specific to shell banks, as any bank, whether shell or not, may or may not be subject to AML laws that require it to implement an AML program, depending on the jurisdiction.

Wolfsberg Financial Crime Principles for Correspondent Banking1, Section: Definitions, pp. 3-4.

TheFATF Grey Listconsists of jurisdictionsunder increased monitoringdue tostrategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT frameworks.

Option A (Correct):Countries placed on thegrey listhaveidentified weaknessesbutcommit to addressing them within set timeframes.

Option B (Incorrect):High-risk jurisdictions that fail to cooperate are placed on theblacklist, not the grey list.

Option C (Incorrect):While additional reviews may occur,grey-listed countries follow an agreed-upon action plan, not an automatic re-evaluation.

Option D (Incorrect):FATF does not impose financial penalties; instead, itmonitors progress and issues public reports.

Based on the USA PATRIOT Act, one action that the US might take to demonstrate extraterritorial reach is to send requests for information to a non-US based financial institution (FI). The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the authority of the US government to issue subpoenas and other legal orders to foreign banks that maintain a correspondent account in the US, requiring them to produce records relating to such account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the US12. This provision was intended to enhance the ability of the US to investigate and prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing activities that involve foreign FIs3.

1: USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)

2: Britannica, USA PATRIOT Act, History & Society

3: Princeton Legal Journal, FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act: Reforms and Legal Implications

 MSBs are frequently accused of being high risk for money laundering because they offer services that can facilitate the movement and conversion of illicit funds, such as currency exchange, money transmission, cheque cashing, and online payment. However, not all MSBs pose the same level of risk, and the degree of regulatory oversight and compliance requirements for MSBs may differ significantly depending on the jurisdiction they operate in. Some countries may have robust anti-money laundering (AML) regimes for MSBs, while others may have weak or inconsistent regulations, or even no regulations at all. This creates challenges and vulnerabilities for MSBs that operate across borders, as they may face different expectations and obligations from different authorities, or encounter gaps or loopholes in the AML framework. Moreover, some MSBs may operate informally or illegally, without registering or obtaining licenses from the relevant regulators, making them harder to detect and supervise. Therefore, MSBs are often perceived as high risk for money laundering, as they may be exploited by criminals who seek to take advantage of the regulatory discrepancies or deficiencies among countries.

Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses1

What Is A Money Services Business?2

Money Services Business (MSB) Information Center3

Money Services Business (MSB): Types, Examples, & AML Compliance4

 According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, one of the challenges of online financial technologies is the difficulty of verifying the identity and legitimacy of the customers and counterparties. This creates opportunities for money launderers and other criminals to exploit the anonymity and speed of online transactions to move and conceal illicit funds. The other options are not directly related to the money laundering risk posed by online financial technologies.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 5: Risk-Based Approach, page 133.

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Chapter 7: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 203.

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.

Banks within theEUmust comply withAML laws and data privacy regulationsbefore sharing customer data.

Option D (Correct):Information sharing should belimited to what is necessary and proportionate, followingGDPR and AMLDregulations.

Option A (Incorrect):AML laws allowinformation-sharing in certaincross-border investigations.

Option B (Incorrect):Whilelegal review is necessary, aproduction order is not always requiredforAML-related information sharing.

Option C (Incorrect):Data protection laws (e.g., GDPR) must still be respected, even in financial crime investigations.

After filing a suspicious activity report (SAR), an investigator should prepare a summary for senior management recommending client off-boarding. This is because client off-boarding is a risk-based decision that requires senior management approval and may involve legal considerations. Informing other local financial institutions about the client, restraining or blocking the client’s account(s), or contacting law enforcement directly are not appropriate actions for an investigator to take after filing a SAR, as they may compromise the confidentiality of the SAR, violate privacy laws, or interfere with ongoing investigations.

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.

Large and frequent credit balances on a credit card resulting in request for refunds is an indicator of suspicious activity because it may suggest that the cardholder is using the credit card to launder money or to conceal the source of funds. This is also known as credit card refund fraud or credit card laundering. The cardholder may make purchases with the credit card using illicit funds, then request refunds to another account or in cash, thus transferring the funds to a legitimate or less traceable channel. This activity may also be used to evade currency reporting requirements or to avoid detection by law enforcement or financial institutions.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 381

Suspicious Activity Reporting Indicators and Examples, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Indicator 14: Excess Purchases or Transactions2

Credit Card Laundering, Money Laundering Bulletin, Issue 245, October 2019

A bank employee who willfully violates anti-money laundering laws faces the risk of criminal investigation and imprisonment, as these are serious offenses that could result in felony charges and penalties. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, individuals who knowingly violate the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or other anti-money laundering laws could face up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $500,0001. Similarly, in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia,individuals who commit money laundering offenses could face imprisonment and/or fines234.

1: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments, Section 2101 2: UK Government, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 7: Money Laundering Offences, Section 327-329 3: Government of Canada, Criminal Code, Part XII.1: Laundering of Proceeds of Crime, Section 462.31 4: Australian Government, Criminal Code Act 1995, Chapter 10: National Infrastructure, Part 10.2: Money Laundering, Section 400.3-400.9

Penalties for AML/CFT violations, including criminal and civil penalties, fines, jail terms, as well as internal sanctions, such as disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

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.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.4: Training1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.4: Training2

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.

AML KYC Onboarding Lifecycle Process Flow | Guide – AdvisoryHQ

New EBA AML Guidelines on the use of Remote Customer Onboarding Solutions - Bird & Bird

KYC Onboarding Process 2023 - AML requirements - Sumsub

Review of any AML/CFT program begins with the Risk Based Approached. It should first check the internal system to identify risk factors and design program accordingly.

Section 319(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the U.S. government to subpoena records from any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the U.S., regardless of whether the foreign bank has a physical presence in the U.S. or not. The subpoena may request any records relating to the correspondent account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside the U.S. If the foreign bank fails to comply with the subpoena, the U.S. government may direct any U.S. financial institution to terminate its correspondent relationship with the foreign bank and impose civil penalties.

 According to the Wolfsberg Group, the FI should take the following steps regarding the opening of the account for the senior government official:

Reasonably establish if the source of wealth and funds of the official is legitimate. This is to ensure that the FI is not facilitating the laundering of proceeds of corruption, bribery, or other illicit activities by the official, who is considered a politically exposed person (PEP) and poses a higher risk of financial crime. The FI should obtain information and documentation on the origin andownership of the funds, the official’s income and assets, and the purpose and expected activity of the account12.

Perform due diligence procedures on the managing intermediary. This is to verify the identity, reputation, and regulatory status of the intermediary, who acts as a third party on behalf of the official. The FI should also assess the intermediary’s own AML/CFT policies and controls, and the nature and extent of the relationship between the intermediary and the official13.

Determine whether the intermediary representative is acting on the officer’s behalf. This is to establish the beneficial ownership and control of the account, and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or undue influence by the intermediary. The FI should obtain a written confirmation from the intermediary that they are authorized to act on behalf of the official, and that they will disclose any changes in the beneficial ownership or control of the account13.

D (Independent testing): The third line of defense (internal audit) must conduct truly independent testing and assessments of the AFC/AML program to provide objective, unbiased assurance.

“The third line of defense (internal audit) provides independent assurance of the effectiveness of AML/CFT programs and controls by conducting unbiased reviews and testing.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Three Lines of Defense Model; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) Guidance)

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.

1: Wire Transfer Definition - Investopedia

2: International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation - The FATF Recommendations | FATF

3: Wire Transfer Red Flags: Money Laundering & Fraud Risks - Alessa1

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.

1: Requests by Law Enforcement for Financial Institutions to Maintain Accounts, FinCEN, 2014

2: Best Practices for Compliance and Enforcement-Related Information Requests, EPA, 2018

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.

FinCEN Advisory – FIN-2010-A001, page 4

Red Flags of Money Laundering | PPT, slide 9

Red Flags of Microstructuring | CAMS Exam Preparation | ACAMS

Layering is the second stage of the money laundering process, in which the launderer moves the funds around to create distance and confusion between the source and the destination of the illicit proceeds. Layering often involves multiple transactions, such as wire transfers, shell companies, trusts, and offshore accounts, that make it difficult to trace the origin and ownership of the funds. Layering is intended to disguise the audit trail and provide anonymity for the launderer12.

Placement is the first stage of the money laundering process, in which the launderer introduces the illicit proceeds into the financial system, often by breaking them into smaller amounts or using cash-intensive businesses12.

Structuring is a technique used in the placement stage, in which the launderer deposits or withdraws cash in amounts below the reporting threshold to avoid detection or suspicion12.

Integration is the third and final stage of the money laundering process, in which the launderer reintroduces the funds into the legitimate economy, often by purchasing assets, investing in businesses, or mixing them with legal income12.

 1: ACAMS (2020), Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, pp. 12-14. 2: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 1.

 Conducting small cash transactions at multiple locations during the same day is the strongest example of avoiding reporting thresholds. This is a common technique used by money launderers to evade the attention of financial institutions and regulators, who are required to report cash transactions above a certain amount (usually $10,000) to the authorities. By splitting the large sum of money into smaller amounts and depositing them at different branches or ATMs, the money launderer can avoid triggering the reporting requirement and conceal the source and destination of the funds. This practice is also known as smurfing or structuring12.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 36

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.2, Structuring and Smurfing

1, Smurfing Money Laundering: Mechanics, Detection, and Prevention

2, AML & eWallets - The Risks & How To Comply | ComplyAdvantage

United Nations (UN) sanctionsarebindingon allUN member states, but their effectiveness depends onswift adoption and enforcement by national governments.

Option B (Correct):For UN sanctions to be effective, they must be enforced by all member statesthroughstrong domestic legal mechanisms.

Option A (Incorrect):UN sanctions are not necessarily implemented faster than unilateral sanctions (e.g., U.S. OFAC sanctions).

Option C (Incorrect):While UN sanctions apply internationally, enforcement depends on national governments, making implementation inconsistent.

Option D (Incorrect):Clarity of sanction measures is important, but enforcement is the primary factor determining effectiveness.

Key Features of UN Sanctions:

Mandated by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Binding on all 193 UN member states.

May include asset freezes, travel bans, and trade embargoes.

Best Practices for UN Sanctions Compliance:

Ensure national enforcement aligns with UN Security Council resolutions.

Monitor sanctioned individuals/entities through real-time screening tools.

Cooperate with international organizations to prevent sanctions evasion.

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.

---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 effectivenessof its screening system, identify any gaps or weaknesses, and demonstrate its compliance with OFAC regulations.

A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments1, page 4, section 4: Testing and Auditing

OFAC Framework for Sanctions Compliance Programs2, page 2, section 4: Testing and Auditing

OFAC Sanctions List Search Tool3

According to the web search results, 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 money laundering and terrorist financing methods and trends using standards and templates used for FATF typologies reports12. Typologies are the various techniques used to launder money or financeterrorism, and typologies reports are the documents that describe these techniques, identify the vulnerabilities and risks, and provide case studies and best practices to prevent and detect them3. The FATF and its FSRBs produce typologies reports on a regular basis, covering different topics and sectors relevant to their regions and the global community3. By conducting regional-level research and analysis, FSRBs can enhance their understanding of the specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats and challenges faced by their member countries, and provide them with useful guidance and recommendations to mitigate these risks12.

The other options are not correct because they are either not the methods used by FSRBs to understand the inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks in their regions, or they are not consistent with the FATF standards and expectations. Requiring member countries to develop statistical metrics over money laundering and terrorist financing crimes may be a useful way to measure the effectiveness of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) systems, but it is not a method used by FSRBs to understand the risks in their regions. Rather, it is a requirement imposed by the FATF on all countries to collect and maintain comprehensive statistics on matters relevant to the effectiveness and efficiency of their AML/CFT systems4. Requiring participating financial institutions of their members to file suspicious transaction reports (STRs) to the regional body may be a violation of the FATF standards, which state that financial institutions should report any suspicious transactions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) of their country, not to any regional or international body5. Moreover, STRs are confidential and protected by legal provisions, and should not be disclosed to any third party without the consent of the FIU5. Conducting global research on money laundering and terrorist financing trends and reporting their findings in their own typologies report may be a duplication of the FATF’s work, as the FATF is the global standard-setter and policy-maker for AML/CFT, and produces typologies reports that cover the global trends and issues3. FSRBs should focus on the regional-level research and analysis, and coordinate and cooperate with the FATF and other FSRBs to share information and experiences12.

 5678910

According to the Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3rd AMLD), a politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, government ministers, judges, senior military officers, or members of parliament1. The 3rd AMLD requires institutions and persons covered by the Directive to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures when dealing with PEPs residing in another Member State or in a third country, in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing risks1. The 3rd AMLD also specifies that a person who is no longerentrusted with a prominent public function shall not be considered a PEP after a period of at least one year has elapsed since that person left office, unless the institution or person covered by the Directive has knowledge or reason to believe that the person is still exposed to specific risks2. However, the Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, which lays down implementing measures for the 3rd AMLD, extends this period to at least two years, and allows Member States to extend it further, depending on the level of risk and the type of prominent public function involved3.

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing

2: Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC

3: Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis