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

AnEnterprise-Wide Risk Assessment (EWRA)helpsfinancial institutionsidentify and mitigatemoney laundering risks.

Option B (Correct):Wolfsberg Group and FATF emphasize that an EWRA should focus onhigher-risk customers, products, and geographies, ensuringappropriate controlsare in place.

Option A (Incorrect):Institutions shouldnot blindly adopt third-party frameworkswithoutcustomizing themto their specific risk exposure.

Option C (Incorrect):While new clients are important, an EWRA mustassess risks across all customers and transactions.

Option D (Incorrect):EWRAmust address residual risk, not just inherent risk. Effectivemitigation strategiesare essential.

A: Selling assets at a significant loss, especially shortly after purchase, is a classic red flag for asset laundering and value manipulation, which can be used to disguise the true nature of proceeds.

C: Transactions involving individuals from high-risk jurisdictions, as identified by the EU and FATF, warrant heightened scrutiny due to increased ML/TF risk.(CAMS 6th Edition, Red Flags for Complex Asset Transactions; EU List of High-Risk Third Countries)

B and D may contribute to complexity but are not the primary red flags in this scenario.

Verified Answer: = A. Collect further customer reference data and determine what must be screened and at which frequency. and C. Deploy an independent risk-based test to ensure the screening on this customer is effective.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation: = When an existing customer changes its business scope and jurisdictions, banks need to manage sanctions compliance risk effectively. Here are the steps they should take:

1. Collect Further Customer Reference Data: Obtain updated information about the customer’s new business activities, locations, and counterparties. Understand the nature of their transactions and assess the associated risks. Determine what specific data elements need to be screened (e.g., names, addresses, beneficial owners) and establish the appropriate screening frequency.

2. Deploy an Independent Risk-Based Test: Conduct a comprehensive risk assessment tailored to the customer’s changes. This assessment should consider factors such as the customer’s industry, geographic exposure, and transaction volume. The risk assessment helps identify high-risk areas that require enhanced scrutiny.

3. Screen Directors and Ultimate Beneficial Owners: Perform sanctions screening not only on the customer but also on their directors and ultimate beneficial owners. This ensures that any potential risks associated with these individuals are identified and mitigated.

4. Perform Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and Negative Media Screenings: Continue to screen the customer and related parties against PEP lists and negative media sources. This helps detect any adverse information related to politically exposed individuals or entities.

By following these steps, banks can proactively manage sanctions compliance risk and safeguard their institution’s reputation while adhering to regulatory requirements12.

These two options are indicative of money laundering red flags associated with money service businesses, as they may suggest attempts to avoid reporting requirements, conceal the source or destination of funds, or use false or stolen identities. Money service businesses are vulnerable to money laundering due to the high volume and anonymity of transactions, the ease of cross-border transfers, and the lack of effective regulation and supervision in some jurisdictions12. Therefore, they should implement robust anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and monitor and report any suspicious activity.

The most important consideration when deciding whether to recommend closing the account is the institution’s anti-money laundering policy. This is because the policy should provide clear and consistent criteria for account closure decisions, based on the risk assessment, the nature and severity of the suspicious activity, the customer due diligence information, and the legal and regulatory obligations of the institution. The policy should also ensure that the account closure process is independent, objective, and transparent, and that it does not compromise the confidentiality of the suspicious transaction report or the investigation.

=

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2, page 1971

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5, Lesson 5.4, video time 9:00-10:302

ACAMS CAMS Certification Practice Exam, Question 145, page 2863

The anti-money laundering officer should advise the account-opening officer to verify the identity of all the partners as an initial step. This is because opening a bank account for an offshore company with multiple owners from different jurisdictions poses a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, the bank should apply enhanced due diligence measures to ensure that the offshore company and its owners are legitimate and not involved in any criminal activities. One of the key measures is to verify the identity of all the partners, not just the one who presents the power of attorney. This will help the bank to establish the beneficial ownership and control structure of the offshore company, as well as to detect any possible fraud, forgery, or coercion in the power of attorney document. The bank should also verify the authenticity and validity of the power of attorney, and the scope and purpose of the authority granted to the partner who requests the account opening.

The other options are less important or irrelevant as initial steps. Verifying the source of the deposit is also a part of the enhanced due diligence process, but it should be done after verifying the identity of the partners and the offshore company. Filing a suspicious transaction report with the appropriate Financial Intelligence Unit or the Egmont Group is a possible action that the bank may take if it detects any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing in the account opening process, but it is not an initial step. The Egmont Group is an international network of Financial Intelligence Units that facilitates information exchange and cooperation, but it is not a reporting authority.

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 3: Customer Identification and Verification, 1

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 4: Customer Risk Assessment, 2

ACAMS Study Guide, Chapter 5: Ongoing Monitoring, 3

Powers of attorney: opening a bank account, 4

According to the USA PATRIOT Act, US authorities do have the power to subpoena records from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks. This is known as a "section 314(a) request," which allows law enforcement to obtain information related to suspected terrorist financing or money laundering.

However, US authorities are not limited to seizing only funds transferred under OFAC sanctions if there is an equivalent UN sanctions regime that has been contravened. The US government can impose its own sanctions that are independent of the UN, and can seize funds or take other actions to enforce those sanctions.

Therefore, the correct answers to the question are A and C:

A. If the funds are seized, then the foreign bank would be within its rights to dispute such seizure. C. The USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General to subpoena records from the foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a US bank.