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

Typical events to identify and investigate potential AML activities include: A) blocked transactions involving individuals included in the Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List; B) internal tips from employees of the bank about potential suspicious activity; and C) alerts triggered by the automated AML monitoring system [1]. Blocked transactions are those which involve individuals included on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List – this is a list maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of individuals who are subject to economic or trade sanctions [1], or who may be involved in money laundering or terrorist activities [2]. Internal tips are those which are provided by employees of the bank who may have observed suspicious activity, or have reason to believe that certain transactions or activities may be related to potential money laundering. Alerts triggered by the automated AML monitoring system are those which are generated by the banks systems and processes which are designed to detect potential money laundering.

When dealing with correspondent banking clients, banks must evaluate the ownership and management structure of the client in order to assess the risks associated with the relationship. The status of the entity as a state, publicly, or privately held entity, as well as the transparency of the ownership structure, are important factors to consider when assessing these risks. Banks should also take into account the size of the management structure, the regularity of boardmeetings, and the length of time since the last Wolfsberg Group review in order to determine the risk associated with the correspondent banking relationship.

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.

Money laundering can have serious consequences for financial institutions. They may face increased investigation costs and fines from regulators and law enforcement agencies for failing to detect or prevent money laundering activities. Additionally, money laundering can result in a loss of profitable business as customers and counterparties may no longer want to do business with the institution due to its reputation for being associated with illicit activity.

The primary purposes of Financial Action Task Force (FATF)-Style Regional Bodies are to promote effective implementation of FATF recommendations and to provide expertise and input in FATF policy-making. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 180)

MSBsarehigh-risk for financial crime, requiringstrict AML controls.

Option D (Correct):Hesitancy to provide beneficiary informationis astrong indicator of illicit financial activity.

Option E (Correct):Using multiple accounts under different namesis aknown money laundering technique.

Option A (Incorrect):Currency exchange is common in MSBs, thoughadditional factors must be assessed.

Option B (Incorrect):Large cash deposits are normal for cash-based businesses, butneed further scrutiny.

Option C (Incorrect):Frequent small remittancesare normal, unless linked tostructuring or smurfing.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that facilitates and prompts the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences1. The Egmont Group suggests that one of the core objectives that would lead to an effective national FIU is to have absolute trust amongst national and international stakeholders before sensitive information will be exchanged with confidence2. This means that the FIU should establish and maintain a high level of credibility, professionalism, and integrity in its operations, and ensure that the information it receives and disseminates is protected and used appropriately. The FIU should also comply with the Egmont Group’s principlesand standards for information exchange, and foster a culture of mutual trust and cooperation with other FIUs and relevant authorities3.

The other three options are incorrect because:

The FIU must operate from physically separated premises from other law enforcement agencies and government offices is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and be free from undue influence or interference, it does not necessarily have to be physically separated from other agencies or offices. The FIU may be located within the judicial, law enforcement, administrative, or hybrid model, depending on the country’s legal and institutional framework4.

The FIU meets the Egmont Group assessment criteria is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While meeting the Egmont Group assessment criteria is a requirement for becoming and remaining a member of the Egmont Group, it is not an objective in itself. The assessment criteria are based on the FATF recommendations and the Egmont Group’s own documents, and they serve as a benchmark for evaluating the FIU’s compliance and effectiveness5.

The FIU must be able to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU may contribute to the prevention and detection of corruption, as well as the recovery of illicit assets, by analyzing and sharing financial intelligence, it is not the sole or primary responsibility of the FIU to promote the value of the government’s commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country. This is a broader and more complex goal that involves multiple actors and factors, such as political will, legal framework, institutional capacity, civil society, media, and international cooperation.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 64 2: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 2 3: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 3-4 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 67 5: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Support and Compliance Process, June 2013, [6], p. 3-4 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 91-92

The most important risk factor in this scenario is the proposed offshore jurisdiction that is known for its strong privacy laws limiting access to customer information by law enforcement. This indicates that the customer may be trying to evade tax, hide the source or destination of funds, or engage in other illicit activities that could expose the bank to money laundering or terrorist financing risks. Offshore jurisdictions are often used by criminals to create complex corporate structures that obscure the beneficial ownership and control of the entities involved. The bank should conduct enhanced due diligence on the customer, the offshore company, and the nature and purpose of the transactions.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 35-36, 38-39

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2, Lesson 2.3, Offshore Financial Centers

1, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Offshore Financial Centers and Money Laundering

2, CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Exam Outline, Domain 2, Task 2.3