ACAMS Updated CAMS Exam Questions and Answers by dion

 Reciprocity is one of the high-level principles that govern the relationship between the FATF and the FSRBs. It means that both the FATF and the FSRBs should respect and acknowledge each other’s work, such as standard setting, mutual evaluations, and follow-up processes. Reciprocity also implies that the FATF and the FSRBs should have similar mechanisms or practices for ensuring effective participation of their members in their activities.

References: = The main reference for this question is the document titled “High-Level Principles and Objectives for FATF and FATF-style regional bodies” published by the FATF in February 2019. You can access it by clicking here. You can also find more information about the FSRBs and their roles on the FATF website and the Sygna blog.

When an FI is being investigated for possible money laundering, it is important that it cooperates with the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in a professional and transparent manner. This means that the FI should take the following steps:

Maintain centralized control over all requests and responses to ensure completeness and timely responses. This will help the FI to avoid duplication, inconsistency, or omission of information, as well as to track the status and progress of the requests and responses. It will also facilitate the communication and coordination between the FI and the LEAs, and demonstrate the FI’s willingness to cooperate12.

Review subpoenas and other information requests by senior management and an investigations group or counsel. This will help the FI to assess the scope, relevance, and legality of the requests, as well as to identify any potential risks, conflicts, or sensitivities. It will also enable the FI to prepare and provide the requested information in an accurate and timely manner, and to seek clarification or negotiation if necessary13.

The other options are not advisable, as they may indicate a lack of cooperation, obstruct the investigation, or damage the FI’s reputation. For example:

Making employees, including corporate officers, unavailable for interviews and refusing documents upon receipt of a subpoena may be considered as non-compliance, evasion, or contempt of court, and may result in legal sanctions or penalties4.

Addressing the document destruction policy to ensure the relevant documents are destroyed may be seen as tampering with evidence, destroying records, or concealing information, and may constitute a criminal offence or a breach of regulatory obligations5.

Not answering inquiries from the media directly, but rather replying, “No comment” may create a negative impression, fuel speculation, or invite criticism, and may harm the FI’s image, credibility, or trustworthiness.

References:

Cooperation between FIUs, Law Enforcement Authorities, and Prosecutors

AML and Financial crimes investigation

Mechanisms for interaction of law enforcement agencies in the field of counteracting and combating money laundering

Recommendation 30: Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities

Money laundering and illicit finance

This potential action is authorized by Section 319 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which allows the U.S. government to seize funds from a foreign bank’s correspondent account in the U.S. if the foreign bank refuses to cooperate with a request for records relating to an investigation of money laundering or terrorist financing. The U.S. government can seize an amount equal to the funds in the account of the target of the investigation, regardless of whether those funds are actually in the correspondent account. In this case, the U.S. government can seize $1 million from Bank A’s correspondent account in the U.S. because Bank A holds $1 million in the account of the WTS, which is the target of the forfeiture action.

The other potential actions are not authorized by the USA PATRIOT ACT or other U.S. laws. The U.S. government cannot seize Bank A’s entire $5 million correspondent account in the U.S. because that would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account and would violate the principle of proportionality. The U.S. government cannot seize the WTS’s $1 million account at the non-U.S. branch of Bank A because that would require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction where the branch is located, which may not be forthcoming. The U.S. government cannot seize $5 million from the non-U.S. branch of Bank A where the WTS’s account is located because that would also require the cooperation of the foreign jurisdiction and would exceed the amount in the WTS’s account.

References:

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: International Standards and Global Initiatives, pp. 67-68

CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, pp. 54-55

How Does the Patriot Act Affect Criminal Investigations? | Nolo, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts

The USA PATRIOT Act at 20: Sneak and Peek Searches - CRS Reports, Section 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts

A customer visiting multiple branches of the MSB on the same day in order to transfer funds internationally is a potential indicator of structuring, which is a technique used by money launderers to avoid reporting thresholds or detection by authorities. A customer attempting to buy money orders under $3,000 USD in cash multiple times a day is also a possible sign of structuring, as well as an attempt to evade the identification and recordkeeping requirements for MSBs. Both scenarios should be included in the procedures for further review by the AML Officer.

References:

BSA/AML Risk Assessment for Money Services Businesses (MSBs), section “Risk Factors”, sub-section “Structuring”: “Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a specific pattern calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the BSA and/or 31 CFR Chapter X. Structuring is illegal and is often indicative of money laundering or other illicit activity.”

Money Services Business (MSB) — AML Compliance Guide, section “AML Compliance Requirements for MSBs”, sub-section “Identification and Recordkeeping”: “MSBs must verify the identity of any person who conducts a transaction of $3,000 or more. They must also keep records of the transaction, including the name, address, date of birth, and identification number of the customer, as well as the amount, date, and method of payment.”