ACAMS Updated CAMS Exam Questions and Answers by aysha

The bank’s existing anti-money laundering training is not adequate to be delivered to the employees of the newly acquired credit card business, because anti-money laundering training needs to be tailored and focused on the risks specific to the business. Credit card businesses face different types of money laundering risks than retail banks, such as card-not-present fraud, identity theft, card skimming, and prepaid card abuse. Therefore, the anti-money laundering training for credit card businesses should cover the specific red flags, indicators, typologies, and mitigation measures related to these risks, as well as the relevant laws and regulations that apply to credit card businesses.

References:

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.31

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.21

Certification Candidate Handbook, Section 3.22

Latest CAMS Exam Questions, Question 433

The charity frequently withdrawing cash from the bank indicates possible terrorist financing, as cash transactions are often used to conceal the source, destination, and purpose of funds. Cash transactions also make it difficult to trace the flow of funds and identify the beneficiaries. Terrorist financiers may use charities as a cover to collect and distribute funds for their activities, and may exploit the cash-based nature of charitable donations to avoid detection12.

 According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, two channels that can be utilized during a cross-border money laundering investigation to assist in gathering information are contacting existing liaison officers in the foreign jurisdiction and exchanging information between national law enforcement agencies. These are two of the methods that the FATF recommends in its guidance on international cooperation1. The FATF states that liaison officers can facilitate the exchange of information and intelligence, provide operational support, and coordinate joint investigations1. The FATF also encourages the use of bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements to enable the exchange of information and intelligence between national law enforcement agencies, as well as the use of informal networks or mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units1.

Option C is incorrect because contacting the potential suspect or their family members to request information is not a recommended channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. This method may alert the suspect of the investigation, compromise the confidentiality of the information, or violate the legal rights of the suspect or their family members. Moreover, the information obtained from the suspect or their family members may not be reliable or admissible in court.

Option D is incorrect because submitting only formal requests for information to a financial intelligence unit (FIU) is not a sufficient channel for cross-border money laundering investigations. While FIUs play an important role in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating financial information, they are not the only source of information for cross-border investigations. The FATF guidance states that investigators should also seek information from other competent authorities, such as law enforcement, supervisory, or judicial authorities, depending on the nature and purpose of the information sought1. Furthermore, the FATF guidance advises investigators to use both formal and informal channels of communication, as formal requests may take longer or face legal obstacles1.

References:

1: FATF, International Co-operation Review Group, Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, October 2012, pp. 13-18.

According to the BSA/AML Manual1, a financial institution is required to file a SAR for any transaction conducted or attempted by, at, or through the institution that involves or aggregates at least $5,000 in funds or other assets, and the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part): (a) involves funds derived from illegal activity or is intended or conducted in order to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity; (b) is designed to evade any requirements of the BSA or its implementing regulations; © has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage, and the institution knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction; or (d) involves use of the institution to facilitate criminal activity. In this case, Bank A is the institution that processes the wire transfer and deems it suspicious, based on its own assessment of the transaction and the customer. Therefore, Bank A is responsible for filing a SAR for the transaction in Country A, where it is located and where the transaction takes place. Bank A does not need to file a SAR for the transaction in Country B or Country C, as it does not have jurisdiction or authority over those countries or the other banks involved. However, Bank A may share information about the suspicious transaction with Bank B or Bank C, subject to certain conditions and limitations, as described in the BSA/AML Manual1.

References:

BSA/AML Manual1

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview2

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Basics3

From Microsoft Start Partners

Another simpler way of looking at the problem is by seeing this case as a Correspondent Banking relationship:

-A is the primary correspondent bank.

-B is the respondent bank.

-C is the receiving bank (of the wire transfer).

Since A is conducting the transaction on behalf of B's customer via the correspondent relationship deemed suspicious, it is the transaction in Country A by the correspondent bank that files the STR. Also, per the regular process, it is on the transaction, not the bank, that the STR is filed against.