CAMS Exam Dumps - ACAMS AML Certification Questions and Answers

 The integration stage of money laundering is where the illicit funds are reintroduced into the legitimate financial system, making them appear as lawful income or assets. This may include using multiple accounts, transferring funds between different banks or jurisdictions, and engaging in various financial activities to legitimize the illicit funds. The integration stage aims to make the illicit funds appear legitimate and indistinguishable from lawful funds within the financial system1.

Option C is an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it involves moving the illicit funds from one bank account to another, creating a complex trail of transactions that obscures the origin and ownership of the funds. This technique is also known as wire transfer laundering or electronic funds transfer laundering2.

Option A is an example of the placement stage of money laundering, as it involves depositing the illicit funds into the financial system for the first time, using a front company as a cover for the illegal source of the funds. A front company is a legitimate business that is used to conceal or facilitate illicit activity.

Option B is an example of the layering stage of money laundering, as it involves converting the illicit cash into other forms of value that are less conspicuous and easier to move, such as negotiable instruments. Negotiable instruments are documents that promise payment to a specified person or the bearer, such as checks, money orders, or traveler’s checks.

Option D is not an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving a bank or another deposit-taking institution, as it does not involve any financial transactions or accounts. It is rather an example of the integration stage of money laundering involving the purchase of goods or services, such as a luxury vehicle, with the illicit funds that had previously been deposited and layered through the financial system.

1: Integration Stage of Money Laundering: Bank or Deposit-Taking Institution

2: Process of Money Laundering: Placement, Layering, Integration - Tutorial

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 32

ACAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 34

The Three Stages Of Money Laundering And How Money Laundering Works

Using the customer profile and expected activity information, a financial institution should be able to identify transactions that are difficult to make economic sense. Transactions that don't make economic sense may be suspicious, and should be investigated further to determine if they may be related to money laundering or other illicit activities. For example, if a customer is profiting from a series of transactions that don't make economic sense, such as buying and selling the same stock multiple times in a short period of time, then this could be a sign of money laundering or other illicit activities.

The Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3MLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. It was adopted in 2005 and repealed by the Fourth European Union Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) in 2015. The 3MLD applies to a range of entities that are considered to be exposed to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Financial institutions, which include credit institutions, financial intermediaries, insurance companies, investment firms, and payment service providers.

Casinos, which include both online and offline gambling services that involve wagering a stake with monetary value.

Real estate agents, which include both natural and legal persons that act as intermediaries in the buying and selling of real property or rights over it.

The 3MLD requires these entities to implement a number of measures to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Conducting customer due diligence, which involves identifying and verifying the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and applying enhanced or simplified measures depending on the level of risk.

Keeping records of customer and transaction data for at least five years after the end of the business relationship or the execution of the transaction.

Reporting suspicious transactions or activities to the competent authorities without delay and without tipping off the customer.

Establishing internal policies, procedures, and controls to ensure compliance with the 3MLD, and providing adequate training and awareness to staff.

Cooperating with the relevant supervisory and regulatory authorities and financial intelligence units.

The 3MLD does not apply to defense attorneys, as they are not considered to be obliged entities under the directive. However, the 3MLD does apply to other legal professionals, such as notaries, lawyers, and accountants, when they perform certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as:

Buying and selling of real property or business entities

Managing of client money, securities, or other assets

Opening or managing bank, savings, or securities accounts

Organizing contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies

Creating, operating, or managing trusts, companies, foundations, or similar structures

THE THIRD EU DIRECTIVE ON MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING, page 11-12

Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, page 1

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2, page 11

V

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation issued by the European Union (EU) that sets out requirements for the processing and protection of personal data. It applies to any company that processes personal data of individuals in the EU, and requires organizations to take appropriate measures to protect the personal data of individuals, such as implementing appropriate security measures, limiting the amount of data collected and stored, and providing clear explanations of how the data will be used. In the context of financial crime investigations, the GDPR requires organizations to ensure the security and confidentiality of personal data that they collect and process, and to take measures to ensure that the data is used only for the purpose of the investigation and not for any other purpose.

Human trafficking and modern slaveryinvolveillicit financial transactions, often conductedthrough banks, money service businesses (MSBs), or virtual assets.

Option B (Correct):Frequent payments for online advertisementscan indicaterecruitment for illicit labor or traffickingoperations.

Option C (Correct):Incoming funds from third-party processors with unclear originatorssuggestconcealed financial flows linked to illicit activities.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Transactional activity with a virtual currency exchange alone is not a strong human trafficking red flag.

Option D (Incorrect):Cash payments to workers could indicate labor law violations but do not necessarily indicate human trafficking.

Common Financial Red Flags for Human Trafficking:

Unexplained cash deposits and withdrawals from multiple accounts.

Frequent wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions.

Use of prepaid cards to move funds anonymously.

Best Practices for Detecting & Preventing Human Trafficking-Related Transactions:

Train frontline staff to recognize financial indicators of trafficking.

Monitor unusual transaction patterns in industries with high labor exploitation risks.

File Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when trafficking-related transactions are suspected.

 A startup virtual currency exchange that operates as a money services business (MSB) must comply with the anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and standards applicable to MSBs, such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) in the United States. One of the key requirements for MSBs is to develop and implement an effective AML compliance program that covers the following four pillars: internal controls, independent testing, designated compliance officer, and training12.

Before launching its operations, the startup should consider the following two AML responsibilities that are essential for its compliance program:

A customer onboarding process: The startup should establish a customer identification program (CIP) that verifies the identity of its customers and collects relevant information, such as name, address, date of birth, and identification number12. The startup should also perform customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) for higher-risk customers, such as those who engage in large or frequent transactions, use anonymous or pseudonymous digital wallets, or originate from high-risk jurisdictions34. The startup should also screen its customers against sanctions lists and other watchlists to prevent dealing with prohibited or suspicious entities12.

Transaction limits consistent with risk appetite: The startup should set appropriate transaction limits for its customers based on its risk assessment and risk appetite. Transaction limits can help mitigate the exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as well as comply with the reporting and recordkeeping obligations under the BSA. For example, the startup should report any cash transactions over $10,000 or any suspicious transactions over$2,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)12. The startup should also monitor its customers’ transactions for any unusual or inconsistent patterns or behaviors that may indicate money laundering or other illicit activities34.

1: ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 6: AML Compliance Program, pp. 139-1461

2: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 6: AML Compliance Program, Lesson 6.1: The Four Pillars of an AML Compliance Program3

3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Customer Due Diligence, pp. 87-1061

4: ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 4: Customer Due Diligence, Lesson 4.1: CustomerIdentification Program and Lesson 4.3: Enhanced Due Diligence3

 The account officer has violated the principle of confidentiality by informing the customer about the legal request from law enforcement. This could amount to tipping off, which is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. Tipping off could jeopardize the investigation, compromise evidence, and alert other potential suspects. The account officer should not discuss any details of the investigation with the customer, nor should he meet with the customer to do so. He should also report his actions to his manager and compliance department, and cooperate with law enforcement as required.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Lesson 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide2, Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Section 4.3: Confidentiality and Information Sharing, pp. 135-136

ACAMS CAMS Certification Exam Outline3, Domain 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation, Task 4.3: Maintain confidentiality of the investigation, p. 18

Higher-risk customer profilesoften include businesses that:

Regularly handle large volumes of cash

Operate in sectors withhistorical vulnerabilities to money laundering

Are involved invirtual assets or unregulated financial activities

Option C – A local used car sale lot that allows cash payments:

This business type is consideredcash-intensive, and accepting monthly payments in cash raises concerns about the source of funds, potential structuring, or placement of illicit proceeds.

Option D – A Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP):

VASPs involved inpeer-to-peer crypto transactionspresent elevated AML risks due to theanonymity, speed, and borderless natureof virtual assets. These institutions are often subject toenhanced due diligence requirements.

Option Ais incorrect: A large multinational with documented transactions and transparency typically poseslower inherent risk, though still subject to review.

Option Bmay be reviewed, buton-site ATM replenishment using store cashis not automatically a red flag without other risk indicators.

Customer composition and product offerings are two important factors that affect the level of risk exposure for a financial institution (FI) in terms of money laundering and terrorist financing. Customer composition refers to the types of customers that the FI serves, such as individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, or politically exposed persons (PEPs). Different customer segments may pose different levels of risk depending on their activities, sources of funds, geographic locations, and connections to other entities. For example, customers that are cash-intensive, have complex ownership structures, operate in high-risk jurisdictions, or are associated with PEPs may present higher risk indicators than customers that are transparent, regulated, and operate in low-risk jurisdictions12. Product offerings refer to the types of products, services, and transactions that the FI provides, such as deposits, loans, wire transfers, trade finance, or digital assets. Different products, services, and transactions may have different levels of vulnerability to money laundering and terrorist financing depending on their features, complexity, volume, and speed. For example, products that are anonymous, involve high-value or cross-border transfers, enable rapid movement of funds, or involve new or emerging technologies may present higher risk indicators than products that are identifiable, involve low-value or domestic transfers, require multiple verification steps, or involve established or traditional technologies12.

1: Risk Assessment: Risk Factors & Mitigating Measures2

2: Risk Assessment: Process, Examples, & Tools1

 The correct answer is B, because it describes a method of money laundering known as structuring or smurfing. This is when a customer or a group of customers break down large amounts of illicit funds into smaller transactions that are below the reporting threshold, and then send them to another customer or entity, often in another country. This way, they avoid triggering any suspicion or regulatory reporting by the bureau de change or money services business (MSB) that processes the wire transfers. Structuring or smurfing is a common technique used by money launderers to move funds across borders and disguise their origin and destination.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may require further investigation depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option A describes a regular and small wire transfer that may be legitimate, such as a remittance to a family member or a friend. Option Cdescribes a large volume of wire transfers that may be related to a seasonal or business activity, such as a holiday or a trade event. Option D describes a series of small wire transfers that may be coincidental or random, and do not necessarily add up to a significant amount.

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 2, pages 36-37

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

---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

 Structuring is a technique used in the placement stage of money laundering, in which the launderer deposits or withdraws cash in amounts below the reporting threshold to avoid detection or suspicion. Structuring is also known as smurfing, because it involves using multiple individuals or locations to carry out the transactions. Structuring is illegal in many jurisdictions and is a red flag for money laundering12.

Option A is not an example of structuring, but of using an alternative remittance system, which is a method of transferring money outside the formal financial sector. Hawala is a type of alternative remittance system that relies on a network of brokers who settle the transactions through trust and honor. Hawala can be used for legitimate purposes, but also poses a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing13.

Option B is not an example of structuring, but of a large cash transaction, which is a common indicator of money laundering. Large cash transactions may involve the proceeds of crime or the attempt to evade taxes or currency controls. Financial institutions are required to report large cash transactions above a certain threshold to the relevant authorities14.

Option D is not an example of structuring, but of a wire transfer, which is a method of moving funds electronically from one account to another. Wire transfers can be used for legitimate purposes, but also pose a risk for money laundering and terrorist financing, especially if they involve high-risk jurisdictions, shell companies, or complex chains of transactions1 .

Terrorist financing can be facilitated on gaming platforms particularly through the trading of in-game items for fiat currency. This mechanism allows for the movement of value outside the formal financial system, potentially evading detection and reporting requirements.

“One of the key ML/TF risks in online gaming is the ability to convert virtual assets or in-game items into real-world (fiat) currency, thereby providing a channel for laundering money or funding terrorist activities.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing; FATF, Virtual Assets Guidance 2019)

Incorrect Options:

A: Buying in-game items with in-game currency does not in itself facilitate terrorist financing.

B: Exchanging items between players may be a step in layering but is not direct TF unless items are traded for fiat.

D: Obtaining items by in-game activity is standard gameplay and not a TF method.

When presented with a search warrant, the AML specialist should record the names and affiliations of the agents who conduct the search. This will help in identifying who conducted the search in case there are any issues that need to be addressed later. Additionally, the AML specialist should obtain a copy of the warrant or photocopy the original warrant. This is important to ensure that the warrant is valid and that the agents are authorized to conduct the search. It is not appropriate to ask the agents questions or remember what items they have seized, as this could interfere with the search and potentially lead to legal issues. Finally, leaving the premises to allow the agents to conduct the search is not necessary, as the AML specialist has the right to be present during the search.

 New business products should be evaluated for AML concerns before they are launched into the market. This is because new products may introduce new risks or vulnerabilities that could be exploited by money launderers or terrorist financiers. By conducting a pre-launch assessment, a financial institution can identify and mitigate these risks, design appropriate controls and procedures, and ensure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. A pre-launch assessment can also help a financial institutionto align its AML strategy with its business objectives, and avoid potential reputational damage or regulatory sanctions.

9 Things to Consider When Evaluating an AML Solution

CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 38.

The 40 Recommendations provide a complete set of countermeasures against money laundering

and terrorist financing, covering

• the identification of risks and development of appropriate policies;

• the criminal justice system and law enforcement;

• the financial system and its regulation;

• the transparency of legal persons and arrangements; and

• international cooperation.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution’s risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.

The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:

The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution’s anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.

The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution’s anti-money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution’s internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program’s adequacy and effectiveness1.

The program should be sent to the institution’s government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution’s government regulator may request or review the institution’s anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.

Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS

This is the correct answer because the institution must ensure that the beneficiaries of the transfers are not on a terrorist watch list, such as the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List, the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or the European Union Terrorism List. These lists contain the names of individuals, entities, and groups that are subject to sanctions or other measures due to their involvement or association with terrorism or terrorist financing. The institution must screen the beneficiaries of the transfers against these lists and report any matches or hits to the relevant authorities. Failing to do so may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, or reputational risks, as well as facilitate the financing of terrorism.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Lesson 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, pp. 57-58

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, Slide 12

Evaluating the risk scoring model and conducting the risk assessment itself may need to be performed annually, every eighteen to twenty-four months, before the launch of a new product, or when an acquisition of another financial institution occurs.