Pass the ACAMS AML CAMS Questions and answers with ValidTests

TheUSA PATRIOT Act Section 313 & 319(b)placesstrict requirements on foreign correspondent banking relationshipsto prevent money laundering.

Option A (Correct):Theforeign bank must disclose its ownership structureto identifyultimate beneficial owners (UBOs).

Option C (Correct):Theforeign bank must certify that it maintains a physical presencein a regulated jurisdiction.

Option E (Correct):Theforeign bank must not allow shell banks to use its U.S. correspondent accounts.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Thecertification does not specifically exclude PEPs, butPEPs require enhanced due diligence (EDD).

Option D (Incorrect):The foreign bankmay operate in multiple jurisdictions, but it must be regulated where it has a presence.

Key Compliance Measures for Correspondent Banking:

Conduct EDD on foreign bank relationships.

Ensure correspondent banks do not facilitate shell banks.

Monitor transactions for money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

A financial intelligence unit (FIU) is a national body or government agency that collects, analyzes, and disseminates financial information related to potential financial crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the core functions of an FIU is to receive disclosures filed by reporting entities, such as banks, money service businesses, casinos, and other obliged entities, that are required to report suspicious or unusual financial activity. These disclosures, also known as suspicious activity reports (SARs) or suspicious transaction reports (STRs), provide valuable intelligence for the FIU and other competent authorities to identify and investigate financial crimes and trace illicit funds. The other statements do not describe the duties of an FIU, but rather the roles of other agencies or bodies, such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the US, which administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions, or the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which sets international standards for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) supervision and regulation.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Lesson 1: The Financial Intelligence Unit

The Financial Intelligence Unit: Role of the FIU and International Cooperation, Financial Crime Academy

What We Do, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering andexchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws1. MLATs provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence that can be used for prosecution and judicial proceedings, such as witness statements, bank records, search and seizure orders, and asset forfeiture2. MLATs also facilitate the cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities of different jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, and cybercrime3. The other options are incorrect because:

B. MLATs do not receive reports of suspicious transactions from financial institutions, but rather request specific information or evidence from foreign authorities. Financial institutions report suspicious transactions to their domestic Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which may then share the information with foreign FIUs through other mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group or bilateral agreements4.

C. MLATs do not obtain intelligence that might lead to evidence, but rather request evidence that is already available or can be obtained by foreign authorities. Intelligence is a broader term that refers to any information that is relevant to the security or interests of a country, and may not be admissible as evidence in a court of law5. Intelligence may be obtained through other means, such as covert operations, surveillance, or informants6.

D. MLATs do not issue the Principles of Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), but rather follow them. The Principles of Information Exchange are a set of guidelines that were adopted by the Egmont Group of FIUs in 2001, and aim to enhance the cooperation and communication among FIUs in exchanging financial information and intelligence7. The Principles of Information Exchange are not legally binding, but rather reflect the best practices and standards of the FIU community.

1: Mutual legal assistance treaty - Wikipedia

2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, page 1

3: The Mutual Legal Assistance Problem explained | wilmap

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 125

5: Intelligence - Wikipedia

6: Intelligence cycle - Wikipedia

7: Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units for Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Cases

Thethird line of defense (internal audit)providesindependent oversightof an institution’sAML/CFT compliance framework.

Option B (Correct):The internal audit function should report to the board’s audit committeeto maintainindependence and objectivity.

Option A (Incorrect):While frequent audits are essential, AML audits should be risk-based rather than mandated at a strict 12-month interval.

Option C (Incorrect):Internal audit must assess remediation plansto ensure they adequatelyaddress AML deficiencies.

Option D (Incorrect):The third line of defense should not be involved in daily AML operationstoavoid conflicts of interest.

Three Lines of Defense in AML Risk Management:

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated

Best Practices for AML Audit Function:

Ensure complete independence from AML operations.

Conduct risk-based audits tailored to emerging threats.

Report audit findings to the board for effective oversight.

A (Enhanced due diligence): EDD is a key control at onboarding for high-risk customers, involving deeper scrutiny, additional documentation, and approval layers to address increased ML/TF risk.

“High-risk customers must be subject to enhanced due diligence during onboarding to ensure a thorough understanding of potential ML/TF risks.”(CAMS 6th Edition, CDD/EDD for High-Risk Customers)

The junior account manager should file a suspicious transaction report (STR) with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Country A, as he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the customer is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing. The customer’s attempt to deposit a large sum of cash, followed by a series of smaller wire transfers from a high-risk jurisdiction, indicates a possible case of structuring or smurfing, which are techniques used by criminals to avoid detection and reporting thresholds. The junior account manager should not close the account, as this could alert the customer and disrupt the investigation by the FIU or law enforcement. The junior account manager should also not notify the anti-money laundering specialist of his bank, as this could create a conflict of interest or breach of confidentiality, unless the bank’s policy requires such notification. The junior account manager should also not offer the customer a more secure method of depositing, as this could be seen as facilitating or condoning the customer’s illicit activities, or exposing the bank to legal or reputational risks.

CAMS Study Guide, pages 97-98, 103-104, 107-108.

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 272.

Certain corporate structuresobscure beneficial ownership, making themattractive for money laundering.

Option A (Correct):Nominee shareholders and directors conceal the true owners of a company, increasing AML risk.

Option C (Correct):Bearer shares allow ownership to be transferred anonymously, making it difficult to trace transactions.

Option E (Correct):Private investment companies in tax havens with strict secrecy laws enable illicit fund movements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):A private company that does not operate in a tax haven presents lower ML risk.

Option D (Incorrect):A foreign LLC is not necessarily high-risk unless linked to a secrecy jurisdiction.

Best Practices for Identifying High-Risk Corporate Structures:

Require full disclosure of beneficial ownership.

Apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) on tax-haven entities.

Monitor for unusual cross-border transactions.

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

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

1: Internal Controls | FinCEN.gov1 2: Reporting Suspicious Transactions - ACAMS2 3: The Consequences of Non-Compliance with AML Regulations - Blog | Unit213 4: Employee Discipline in the Workplace: A Guide for Managers4

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