Free ACAMS CAMS Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure and verify transactions. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized and operate outside the control of any central authority, such as a government or a bank. This makes them attractive for money launderers, who can use them to transfer funds anonymously, quickly, and globally, without leaving a trace or being subject to regulation. Cryptocurrencies pose more risk of money laundering than other sources of money, such as wire transfers, credit cards, or money service businesses, which are subject to more oversight, verification, and reporting requirements.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.9, page 37

CAMS eLearning Course, Module 1, Lesson 9

ACAMS Crypto Hub

A large cash deposit is a potential indicator of money laundering, especially if it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile or behavior. Therefore, the bank should ask the customer about the source and purpose of the funds, and verify the information if possible. In this case, the customer claims to have sold a used car and received cash, which may be a reasonable explanation. However, the bank should not rely solely on the customer’s statement, but should also monitor the account for any further cash transactions or suspicious activity that may indicate money laundering. For example, the bank should check if the customer withdraws the cash soon after the deposit, transfers the funds to other accounts or jurisdictions, or engages in structuring or smurfing to avoid reporting thresholds.

The bank should not do nothing, as this may expose the bank to regulatory or reputational risks, or facilitate money laundering. The bank should also not file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) unless there are other grounds to suspect money laundering, as this may be premature or unnecessary. The bank should not close the account before another issues arise, as this may be disproportionate or discriminatory, and may also alert the customer to the bank’s suspicion.

[ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition], Chapter 4: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 103-104, 107-108.

Customer Identification Program - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 4-5.

Suspicious Activity Reporting - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 4-5.

18 AML Analyst Interview Questions (With Example Answers), ResumeCat, accessed on February 9, 2024.

The art and antiquities market is highly vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financingdue toanonymity in transactions, lack of regulatory oversight, and difficulty in tracing ownership.

Option A (Correct):Art storage in tax-free zones can be used to obscure ownership and avoid AML scrutiny.

Option C (Correct):Using third-party art advisors can facilitate anonymous transactions and shield beneficial ownership.

Option D (Correct):High-value art sold on social media without proper provenance raises ML/TF risksdue tolack of financial oversight.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Paying fair market value does not indicate illicit activity—underpricing or rapid resale are bigger red flags.

Option E (Incorrect):Authenticity verification is common in legitimate art transactions and is not a direct ML/TF red flag.

Red Flags for Art & Antiquities Money Laundering:

Frequent high-value art transactions with no clear business purpose.

Use of intermediaries to conceal beneficial ownership.

Rapid resale of newly purchased art at below-market prices.

Best Practices for AML in the Art Market:

Conduct enhanced due diligence (EDD) on high-value art transactions.

Monitor transactions involving politically exposed persons (PEPs).

Report suspicious transactions linked to high-risk art traders.

According to a report by the OECD, government officers are among the occupations that are particularly vulnerable to the use of false identities and identity theft. This is because government officers have access to sensitive and confidential information, such as personal data, tax records, social security benefits, passports, visas, and licenses. Identity fraudsters may target government officers to obtain or alter such information, or to impersonate them to access restricted areas or systems. Identity fraud involving government officers may facilitate tax evasion, money laundering, corruption, terrorism, and other crimes1.

Some examples of identity fraud schemes involving government officers are:

Rogue agents in the immigration services sector who issue fake or fraudulent documents, such as passports, visas, orresidence permits, to facilitate the entry or stay of illegal immigrants, criminals, or terrorists12.

Corrupt tax officials who use false identities to create fictitious taxpayers or employers, or to modify tax records, to evade taxes or to claim fraudulent refunds or credits13.

Impostors who pose as government officers, such as police, customs, or revenue agents, to extort money or information from unsuspecting victims, or to access secure facilities or databases1 .

REPORT ON IDENTITY FRAUD: TAX EVASION AND MONEY LAUNDERING VULNERABILITIES

Identity Fraud and Immigration Services

Identity Theft and Tax Fraud

[Identity Theft and Government Impersonation Scams]

it describes a reason why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, which is names of the settlor and beneficiaries are not publicly available. This means that the true owners and controllers of the funds or assets held by the trust are hidden from the public and the authorities, and can only be accessed by the trustee or the protector, who may be complicit or unaware of the money laundering scheme. This creates a high level of anonymity and secrecy for the money launderers, who can use the trust to move, disguise, or conceal the origin and destination of their illicit funds.

The other options are not necessarily reasons why trusts established in certain offshore jurisdictions make good vehicles to layer money, although they may have some advantages or disadvantages depending on the circumstances and the risk profile of the customers and countries involved. Option B describes a possible motive for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is to minimize taxes, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be legitimate tax planning or optimization purposes. Option C describes a possible challenge or obstacle for setting up a trust in an offshore jurisdiction, which is offshore jurisdictions are unfamiliar with trust, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be other legal or financial vehicles available in those jurisdictions. Option D describes a possible characteristic or feature of a trust, which is trusts may hold assets of significant size, but this does not imply that the trust is used to layer money, as there may be valid reasons or sources for the large assets.

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 4, pages 86-87

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

FSRBs are regional bodies that work with FATF to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards. FSRBs are made up of member countries that have agreed to work together to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism [1]. The tools used by FSRBs to promote the implementation of AML and CFT standards include training measures, mutual evaluations of its members, technical assistance, and the sharing of information. FSRBs may also adopt recommendations and best practices based on the FATF’s 40 Recommendations.

 Under USA PATRIOT Act Section 311, the U.S. government can impose special measures against a foreign jurisdiction, institution, or transaction that is of primary money laundering concern1. These measures can range from requiring additional recordkeeping and reporting to prohibiting or restricting the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the designated entity2. A payable-through account is a type of correspondent account that allows customers of a foreign bank to access the U.S. financial system by writing checks or making wire transfers from the foreign bank’s account at a U.S. bank3.

In this case, the U.S. government has enacted special measures against a designated entity that has a payable-through account with an EU bank, which in turn has a correspondent banking relationship with a U.S. bank. One of the possible actions that the U.S. bank might be required to take regarding the EU bank’s services for the designated entity is to obtain additional information about customers permitted to use this account. This is to ensure that the U.S. bank can identify and monitor the transactions and activities of the designated entity and its customers, and to prevent any money laundering or terrorist financing risks4.

The other actions listed are not likely to be required by the U.S. government under Section 311. Ensuring the designated entity’s confidential information is not shared with other entities is not a special measure, but a general obligation of any financial institution under privacy laws. Verifying that the EU bank serves the designated entity is not a relevant action, since the U.S. government has already designated the entity as a primary money laundering concern. Performing enhanced due diligence on the EU bank is not a specific action related to the payable-through account, but a broader requirement for any correspondent account under Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act5.

1: USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov1 2: 311 Actions | U.S. Department of the Treasury2 3: Overview of Correspondent Banking and “De Risking” Issues - CRS Reports3 4: U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS4 5: Fact Sheet: Overview of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act5

a qualified compliance officer is a mandatory element of all anti-money laundering programs, regardless of the type or size of the financial institution. The compliance officer is responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing the anti-money laundering program, ensuring its compliance with the relevant laws and regulations, and reporting any suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities12. The compliance officer should have sufficient authority, resources, and expertise to perform these duties effectively.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org1

Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements For Insurance Companies Frequently Asked Questions | FinCEN.gov2

Global organizations must ensure their policies and procedures comply with local laws and regulations in each country where they operate, even when maintaining group-wide consistency. Relying solely on international or U.S. standards does not ensure compliance with all local requirements, which may be more stringent or specific.

“A global group-wide program should ensure adherence to local AML and sanctions laws and regulations in every jurisdiction in which it operates. Local adaptation of policies is essential to address jurisdiction-specific risks and legal requirements.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, International AML/CFT Standards; FATF Recommendations 18, 35; EU & US Sanctions Regulations)

 Predicate offenses are the criminal activities that generate the proceeds that are later laundered through money laundering schemes. A country that does not have strong predicate offenses and is lax in prosecuting AML cases could suffer from increased organized crime and corruption, as criminals would have more opportunities and incentives to engage in illicit activities and evade detection and punishment. Organized crime and corruption can have serious social and economic consequences for a country, such as undermining the rule of law, eroding public trust, threatening national security, harming human rights, reducing economic growth, and distorting market competition123.

Section 319(a) of the USA PATRIOT Actenhancesregulatory oversight of foreign financial institutions with U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option A (Correct):This section requires foreign banks to provide relevant AML records within 120 hours upon request from a U.S. regulatory agency.

Option B (Incorrect):This describes Section 311, which deals with special measures against foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions.

Option C (Incorrect):This is covered under Section 319(b), which permits asset seizures from U.S. correspondent accounts.

Option D (Incorrect):This relates to Section 312, which mandates due diligence on foreign correspondent accounts and private banking.

Best Practices for Compliance with Section 319(a):

Ensure the ability to produce AML-related records within 120 hours.

Establish clear communication channels between correspondent banks.

Monitor foreign financial institution relationships for compliance risks.

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.

This is a common red flag of money laundering that involves layering, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to conceal their origin and ownership. Layering often involves cross-border transfers, especially to high-risk jurisdictions, and rapid movement of funds to avoid detection or tracing. A compliance officer should prioritize this red flag for investigation, as it may indicate a complex money laundering scheme or the financing of terrorism or proliferation.

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, section “Red flags related to transaction patterns”

AML 101: The 10 Most Common Red Flags - KYC-Chain, section “Red flag indicators related to geographical risks”

Anti-money laundering red flags, page 2, bullet point 5

The audit function should report to the audit committee of the board of directors (or similar oversight body) and independently evaluate the risk management and controls of the bank through periodic assessments, including the adequacy of the bank’s controls to mitigate the identified risks, the effectiveness of the bank’s staff’s execution of the controls, the effectiveness of the compliance oversight and quality controls and the effectiveness of the training.

 the internal investigation did not examine the brokerage account, which could be a potential source of money laundering. According to the CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, one of the common methods of money laundering is to use securities brokers to move funds through the purchase and sale of stocks, bonds, or other instruments1. The customer’s frequent transfers from the business account to the brokerage account, and the increased volume of activity in the business account, could indicate that the customer is trying to disguise the origin or ownership of illicit funds by investing them in money market securities. Therefore, the anti-money laundering specialist should recommend the internal investigator to concentrate on the trades made in the brokerage account, and to look for any signs of market manipulation, insider trading, or unusual patterns of transactions1.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, page 55-56.

During a money laundering investigation, law enforcement agents often employ the “follow the money” approach. This investigative technique focuses on tracing financial transactions and identifying patterns to uncover illicit activities. By analyzing the movement of funds, investigators can reveal hidden connections, identify suspicious behavior, and build a case against money launderers. It involves tracking the flow of funds through various accounts, financial institutions, and jurisdictions to understand the underlying criminal activity12.

A lack of information about beneficial owners is a red flag for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. It is important to identify who the actual owners of the company are to understand their potential risk exposure.

Confusing details about the proposed business activity and lack of knowledge about the proposed business are also red flags for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. This could indicate that the proposed business activity is not legitimate and is being used to conceal illegal activities.

Therefore, these two observations should be escalated to the compliance officer for further investigation.

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) is a trade-based money laundering technique commonly used by narcotics traffickers based in Colombia and Mexico. The central feature is the use of a money trader to ensure that the revenue from drug sales in the U.S.doesn’t actually cross any borders. Instead, those dollars are used to purchase any number of legitimate commodities from unsuspecting businesses on behalf of legitimate South American businesspersons, whose legitimate imports are used to obtain pesos for the drug cartels12. The BMPE involves six distinct steps:

Obtaining criminal proceeds: The drug cartels sell drugs for dollars in the U.S.

Involvement of intermediary services: The drug cartels sell the dollars to black market peso exchangers in Colombia at a discounted rate.

Identification of complicit companies: The black market peso exchangers identify exporting companies in the U.S. and importing companies in South America that are willing to participate in the scheme.

Placement of funds: The black market peso exchangers deposit the dollars into U.S. bank accounts or use money service businesses or other methods to transfer the funds.

Layering of funds: The black market peso exchangers use the funds to purchase monetary instruments such as checks, money orders, or wire transfers, or to pay for the goods ordered by the South American importers.

Integration of funds: The South American importers receive the goods or the monetary instruments and use them to pay for their imports or to sell them for pesos in the local market.

1: Black Market Peso Exchange in Money Laundering - Financial Crime Academy

2: Overview - FinCEN.gov