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

 A free-look provision is a period of time, typically 10 to 30 days, in which a new life insurance policy owner can terminate the policy and have their premium refunded1. This can help criminals to launder money by purchasing a policy with illicit funds and then cancelling it within the free-look period to receive a clean check from the insurance company2. This way, they can disguise the source and origin of their funds and avoid any penalties or charges that would otherwise apply to early termination of the policy.

1: Investopedia, What Is a Free Look Period and How Does It Work?

2: FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements for Insurance Companies

Suspicious transaction report (STR) information is confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone outside the compliance function or law enforcement authorities. Providing STR information to the credit department could compromise the integrity of the reporting process and expose the institution to legal risks. The compliance officer should decline to provide the STR information to the credit department and explain the reasons for doing so.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, page 136

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, Candidate Handbook, page 16

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 4.3: Suspicious Transaction Reporting

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Practice Test 1,

RefThis transaction should result in a SAR/STR filing because it indicates possible structuring, which is a form of money laundering that involves breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits to avoid detection or reporting requirements. Structuring is often done to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes, regulations, or sanctions. A small business owner who deposits checks just below the $10,000 USD threshold on a daily basis without providing a legitimate purpose raises a red flag for suspicious activity and should be reported to the relevant Financial Intelligence Unit.

Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) / Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)

What Is a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? Triggers and Filing

How to decide if SAR filing is needed

erence: https://aml-cft.net/library/suspicious-transaction-report-str-suspicious-activity-report-sar/

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.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.2: Regulatory Examinations and Enforcement Actions, pp. 171-174.

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation Guide, Section 3: Regulatory Compliance, pp. 23-24.

The auditor should include the regulatory violation in the audit report and report it to the board of directors. This is because the auditor has the responsibility to report any findings of non-compliance or material weaknesses in the institution’s internal controls, policies, and procedures. The auditor should also provide recommendations for corrective actions and follow-up on their implementation. The board of directors has the ultimate oversight and accountability for the institution’s compliance program and should be informed of any significant issues or risks that may affect the institution’s reputation, operations, or regulatory status12.

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 6: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, p. 125-126 2: The Wolfsberg Group, The Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, October 2014, p. 7, https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/Wolfsberg-Correspondent-Banking-Principles-2014.pdf

Along-term, root cause-based approach ensures AML deficiencies are fully remediated.

Option C (Correct):Addressing root causes ensures the institution remains compliant and prevents recurring violations.

Option A (Incorrect):Consulting with an FIU is unnecessary for internal remediation plans.

Option B (Incorrect):Short-term fixes do not resolve systemic AML issues.

Option D (Incorrect):AML compliance improvements may require investment—cost-cutting should not compromise compliance.

Best Practices for AML Audit Remediation:

Conduct root cause analysis before implementing corrective measures.

Develop a long-term compliance improvement plan.

Allocate sufficient resources for sustainable AML enhancements.

The clients are not willing to have their names provided to the bank is a red flag that should stop the agent from discussing this potential purchase further, as this could indicate that the clients are trying to evade customer due diligence (CDD) or know your customer (KYC) requirements, or hide their beneficial ownership or source of funds. According to the U.K. Money Laundering Regulations 2017, real estate agents must conduct CDD on their customers and any beneficial owners, and verify their identity and address1. The U.K. also has a register of people with significant control (PSC) over companies, which requires companies to disclose their beneficial owners2. The use of private companies and wire transfers could also be a sign of layering, a money laundering technique that involves moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to obscure their origin3.

1: U.K. Government, Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Part 2: Customer Due Diligence, Section 5-6 2: U.K. Government, People with significant control (PSC) register, Overview 3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Page 19

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.

 1: The Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism – Wolfsberg Statement, page 213-214.

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.

Customer Due Diligence - FATF-GAFI.ORG

Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism - Bank for International Settlements

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 36-37.

Arobust customer identification programis critical in preventing money laundering and financial crime.

Option B (Correct):Understanding the nature and purpose of a customer’s business helps banks assess thelegitimacyof financial activity and identify potential risks.

Option D (Correct):Understandingwhya customer selects a particular bank provides insights intopossible risk factors, such as jurisdictional concerns or access to certain financial instruments.

Option A (Incorrect):Limiting online activities is not a standard CDD (Customer Due Diligence) measure. Risk-based controls are applied but do not involve blanket restrictions.

Option C (Incorrect):While online verification is useful,in-person or government-sourced verificationis preferred.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a US agency that administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals1. OFAC has a list of sanctions programs and country information for various regions and topics, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and more2. If a charity is headquartered in a country on the OFAC list, it means that the US government has imposed restrictions or prohibitions on transactions or dealings with that country, its government, entities, or individuals. This poses a high risk of violating the sanctions regulations and exposing the bank to legal, regulatory, or reputational consequences. Therefore, the bank may decide to terminate the banking relationship with the charity to avoid such risks.

The other options are not sufficient reasons to terminate the banking relationship, as they may not indicate illegal or suspicious activities by the charity. A high turnover rate of official positions may be due to various factors, such as organizational changes, staff turnover, or personal reasons. It does not necessarily imply that the charity is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. However, the bank should verify the identity and authority of the new officials and update the customer due diligence information accordingly. The charity may have several incoming international funds transfers because it receives donations or grants from different sources or countries. This is not unusual for an international charity, as long as the funds are consistent with its stated purpose and activities. The bank should monitor the transactions and report any anomalies or red flags to the relevant authorities. The flow of funds both in and out may be complex and hard to trace because the charity operates in multiple jurisdictions or sectors, or has a decentralized or layered structure. This may increase the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but it does not necessarily mean that the charity is engaged in such activities. The bank should conduct enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the charity’s transactions and beneficiaries, and apply a risk-based approach to mitigate the potential risks.

 1: Sanctions List Search Tool | Office of Foreign Assets Control 2: Sanctions Programs and Country Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury

 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.

 1: FFIEC BSA/AML Office of Foreign Assets Control - Office of Foreign … 2: Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN) Human … 3: [Reporting Blocked Transactions | Office of Foreign Assets Control]

as there's NO mitigating control, the temporary control system must be developed and implemented until the permanent mitigating control is developed and implemented.

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.

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, section “Red flags related to transaction patterns”

AML 101: The 10 Most Common Red Flags - KYC-Chain, section “Red flag indicators related to geographical risks”

Anti-money laundering red flags, page 2, bullet point 5

The first step in a financial investigation is to review and analyze allinternalsources of information related to the suspicious transaction.

Option C (Correct):Gathering and assessing internal data helps investigators establish a baseline for normal vs. suspicious customer behavior. This includes reviewing KYC (Know Your Customer) documentation, transaction history, and any previous alerts on the customer.

Option B (Incorrect):This is part of the investigation, but an investigator first needs togatherdata before determining consistency with expected behavior.

Option A (Incorrect):An FIU is typically contactedafterinternal analysis has been completed and a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is warranted.

Option D (Incorrect):External information is useful, but internal data should be reviewed first to confirm whether a case needs escalation.

Institutions that violate anti-money laundering laws may face various risks and consequences, such as legal, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks. As demonstrated by the 2012 HSBC settlement with United States authorities, two of the most significant risks are:

Forfeiture of assets. This means that the institution may have to surrender some or all of its assets that are related to the money laundering activities or violations. For example, HSBC agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion as part of its deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice1.

Civil money penalties. This means that the institution may have to pay fines or penalties to the government or other regulatory agencies for violating the anti-money laundering laws or regulations. For example, HSBC agreed to pay $665 million in civil money penalties to various US regulators, including the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency1.

The other two options, C and D, are not as common or relevant to the 2012 HSBC settlement. Loss of bank charter/license may occur in extreme cases where the institution is deemed unfit to operate or poses a serious threat to the financial system. Imprisonment of bank employees may occur if the employees are found guilty of criminal charges, such as fraud, conspiracy, or wilful violation of anti-money laundering laws. However, these outcomes are usually reserved for individuals, not institutions, and depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

1: HSBC announces settlements with authorities, 2012, https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/investors/stock-exchange-announcements/2012/december/2012-12-11-hsbc-announces-settlements-with-authorities.pdf

2: Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and HSBC Holdings plc, 2012, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20121211_33

3: HSBC settles on record US fee, 2012, https://www.dw.com/en/hsbc-settles-in-us-money-laundering-probe/a-16443391

4: HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laundering accusations, 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering

5: HSBC to pay $1.9bn in US money laundering penalties, 2012, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466

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.

FATF Recommendation 40: Other Forms of International Co-operation

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units

Wolfsberg Group

Egmont Group

Accounts may beclosedif theypose high money laundering or sanction risks.

Option A (Correct):MultipleSAR filingsindicatehigh risk, possibly requiringaccount closureif AML concerns persist.

Option B (Incorrect):Tuition paymentsare alegitimate purposefor fund transfers.

Option C (Incorrect):Indirect dealings withSDNs require compliance review, but notimmediate account closure.

Option D (Incorrect):Civil subpoenasalone do not justifyaccount termination.

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.

The potential client is attempting to commit the illegal activity of using insider information to trade securities. Insider information is any material, non-public information that could affect the price or value of a security, such as earnings reports, mergers, acquisitions, or regulatory actions. Insider trading is the act of buying or selling securities based on insider information, which gives the trader an unfair advantage over other investors who do not have access to such information. Insider trading violates the principles of market integrity, fairness, and transparency, and can undermine investor confidence and trust. Insider trading is also a form of market abuse and financial crime, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 1.3: Financial Crime, Subsection 1.3.3: Market Abuse, pp. 25-26

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 1.3: Financial Crime, Sublesson 1.3.3: Market Abuse, Video Time: 2:00-3:30

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 12, Answer C

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the key steps in conducting an effective investigation of a potential money laundering or terrorist financing activity is to gather all relevant information about the customer and the transaction, including the nature and purpose of the account, the source and destination of funds,the expected account activity, and the customer’s risk profile1. In this case, the compliance officer should meet with the staff who opened the new account for the public official to obtain this information and assess whether the account is consistent with the customer’s profile and needs, or whether it indicates a possible attempt to conceal or launder illicit funds. Waiting for the new account to receive funds, calling the competentauthorities, or calling the official’s office are not appropriate actions at this stage, as they may compromise the investigation, alert the customer, or violate confidentiality rules1.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, page 1311

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 evidenceand 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 ©.

Conducting anonymous transactions is the most likely activity to facilitate money laundering through online banking systems with inadequate controls. Anonymous transactions allow money launderers to hide their identity, source and destination of funds, and the purpose of their transactions from the authorities and the financial institutions. Online banking systems that do not have proper KYC, customer due diligence, and transaction monitoring controls are vulnerable to being exploited by money launderers who can use various techniques, such as encryption, proxy servers, virtual currencies, prepaid cards, and online gambling, to conduct anonymous transactions123.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 40-41, 43-44

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.4, Money Laundering Using New Payment Methods

1, Fighting money laundering in the age of online banking, virtual currencies and internet gambling | ERA Forum

2, Financial crime risk management in digital payments | McKinsey

3, The Relationship Between Digital Banking and Financial Crime

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.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 971

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4, Lesson 32

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline, Domain 4, Task 23

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 4, page 851, bearer shares are shares that do not have the name of the owner registered on them, and the ownership is transferred by the physical delivery of the share certificate. This means that the true beneficial owner of the company can be hidden or changed without any record or notification. Bearer shares are considered a high-risk factor for money laundering and terrorist financing, as they can facilitate the movement and concealment of illicit funds through anonymous corporate vehicles. Therefore, the company having bearer shares should cause the most suspicion of money laundering among the options given.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may have some risk implications depending on the context and the customer profile. Option A, the jurisdiction being a known tax haven, may suggest that the company is seeking to avoid or minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C, the corporation director being a European citizen, may indicate that the company has some cross-border or international activities, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be valid business or personal reasons for the director’s nationality. Option D, no financial statements being filed for 3 years, maysuggest that the company is not complying with the accounting or reporting standards of the jurisdiction, but this does not imply that the company is involved in money laundering, as there may be other explanations or mitigating factors for the lack of financial statements.

1: ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 85: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

B: If a bank fails to demonstrate sustained improvement or cannot resolve identified deficiencies, it can face civil or even criminal penalties from regulators. Regulators expect not just policy changes, but proof of effectiveness and ongoing compliance improvements.

C: Even after addressing many concerns, if all issues are not resolved—such as outstanding transaction monitoring backlogs—regulators may issue orders to further remediate the AML program until full compliance is achieved.

CAMS 6th Edition and regulatory guidance clarify that “regulators may impose penalties, issue consent orders, or require further remediation where weaknesses persist.”

Incorrect:

A: Secondary sanctions generally apply to sanctions violations, not standard AML program weaknesses.

D: Regulatory actions can be public and do pose reputational risk.

E: While transparency is sometimes required, this is not a universal regulatory response.

Transaction monitoring governanceinvolves ensuring thatAML detection systems are effective, aligned with regulatory standards, and capable of identifying evolving threats.

Option B (Correct):Legal cooperation is essential for responding to subpoenas and law enforcement inquiries.

Option D (Correct):Regularly updating transaction monitoring scenarios ensures that the system adapts to emerging financial crime trends.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):SARs cannot be withdrawn unless an error was made—once filed, SARs remain confidential and must be retained.

Option C (Incorrect):Client profile updates are a CDD/KYC function, not directly related to transaction monitoring governance.

Best Practices for Transaction Monitoring Governance:

Regularly review system effectiveness through validation tests.

Collaborate with legal and compliance teams for risk mitigation.

Use AI and data analytics to refine detection accuracy.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the only body with the legal authority under international law to impose binding sanctions on countries, entities, or individuals.

“The Security Council’s primary function in imposing sanctions is to maintain or restore international peace and security. These sanctions are legally binding on all UN member states.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: International Sanctions and Proliferation Financing; United Nations Charter, Article 41)

Incorrect Options:

B: Sanctions may address AML/CFT failings, but the core mandate is international peace/security.

C: The UNSC does not primarily conduct research or impact analysis.

D: The purpose is international peace/security, not only domestic financial stability.

According to the ACAMS study guide1, some of the common red flags for money laundering or financing terrorism are:

Customers who provide insufficient or suspicious information, such as unusual or unverifiable identification documents, different taxpayer identification numbers, or vague or inconsistent information about their business or source of funds.

Transactions that have unusual features, such as large cash payments, unexplained payments from a third party, use of multiple or foreign accounts, complex or illogical transactions, or transactions that are inconsistent with the customer’s profile or expected behavior.

Geographic concerns, such as transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions, offshore financial centers, secrecy havens, or countries subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Ultimate beneficial ownership that is unclear, such as customers who use shell companies, trusts, or other legal entities to obscure their identity or the identity of the true owners or controllers of the funds or assets.

In this scenario, two red flags that could indicate money laundering or financing terrorism are:

B. The guarantor company’s ownership structure is overly complex. This could be an attempt to hide the true source or destination of the funds, or to evade regulatory or law enforcement scrutiny. The use of a trust formed in a Caribbean island and a holding company based in a European secrecy haven could also indicate geographic concerns, as these jurisdictions are known for their low transparency and high confidentiality.

D. The ultimate beneficial owner is a young lady who has gained her wealth through a small business. This could be a case of false or misleading information, as the source of funds is not commensurate with the size or nature of the transaction. The fitness studio business could be a front or a cover for illicit activities, or the young lady could be a nominee or a straw man for the real owner or beneficiary.

= 1 ACAMS. (2020). Study Guide for the Certification Examination: Sixth Edition. Miami, FL: ACAMS.

FSRBs are regional bodies that work with FATF to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards. FSRBs are made up of member countries that have agreed to work together to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism [1]. The tools used by FSRBs to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards include training measures, mutual evaluations of its members, technical assistance, and the sharing of information. FSRBs may also adopt recommendations and best practices based on the FATF’s 40 Recommendations.

A: The first step in any suspicious activity investigation is to review the transaction history and other relevant account information to establish context, identify patterns, and determine if the behavior is consistent with known typologies of money laundering.

“The initial phase of an AML investigation is to review relevant account information and transaction activity to assess whether a SAR filing is warranted.”

This approach ensures that any subsequent decisions, such as escalation, SAR filing, or customer outreach, are based on a comprehensive understanding of the facts.

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.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1, page 103

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 104

3: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, page 105

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.

1: What Are Economic Sanctions? | Council on Foreign Relatio

2: How Economic Sanctions Work - Investopedia

 A financial institution should regularly update its AML risk assessment in order to ensure that the results of the assessment are accurate and reflect the current money laundering and other illicit financial activity risks that the institution may face. This helps to ensure the institution has a comprehensive understanding of the risks associated with its activities and can implement adequate controls and procedures as necessary.

A lack of information about beneficial owners is a red flag for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. It is important to identify who the actual owners of the company are to understand their potential risk exposure.

Confusing details about the proposed business activity and lack of knowledge about the proposed business are also red flags for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. This could indicate that the proposed business activity is not legitimate and is being used to conceal illegal activities.

Therefore, these two observations should be escalated to the compliance officer for further investigation.

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.

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.

this activity is unusual and inconsistent with the expected behavior of an accounting firm’s operational account. The account should normally receive fees from clients that are proportional to the services rendered and reflect the market rates. Receiving international payments that are substantially higher than other fees could indicate that the account is being used to launder money or finance terrorism by disguising illicit funds as legitimate income. This could trigger a red flag for the bank and prompt a comprehensive review of the account.

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.6, page 24: “Methods to launder money used in banks and other deposit taking institutions”.

ExamTopics, Question 446: “An accounting firm opened an account at a bank that is intended to be used as the operational account for the business. After a few months, a comprehensive review of the account was triggered due to unusual activity on the account. Which most likely triggered the review?”

This customer action indicates possible money laundering because it could be a sign of layering, which is the second stage of the money laundering process. Layering involves moving the illicit funds around to create distance and confusion between the source and the destination of the money. Transferring all funds to another bank on the same day of large cash deposits could be an attempt to avoid detection by the bank’s transaction monitoring system or by the authorities. It could also be a way to break the audit trail and obscure the origin of the funds.

The other customer actions are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they could raise some red flags depending on the context and the customer profile. Continually making weekly small cash deposits could be a sign of structuring, which is a technique to avoid reporting requirements by depositing amounts below the threshold. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who receives cash payments from students. Periodically initiating wire transfers to another account owned by a relative could be a sign of funneling, which is a technique to move funds between accounts that are not related to the business or personal activities of the customer. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who supports their family members financially. Opening a savings account and making frequent transfers from the checking account could be a sign of commingling, which is a technique to mix illicit funds with legitimate funds from a legal source. However, this could also be a legitimate behavior for a tutor who wants to save money for future expenses.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, pp. 35-40

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 28-32

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, Video 2.2: The Three Stages of Money Laundering

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 311, Answer C