Free ACAMS CAMS Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 12

The correct answer is C, as mapping scenarios are helpful in mitigating the weakness of not generating alerts when activity is consistently abnormal over a long period of time. Mapping scenarios are used to compare a customer’s activity with their expected activity based on their profile, risk rating, or historical behavior1. By using mapping scenarios, the organization can identify customers whose activity deviates significantly from their normal or expected patterns, and flag them for further investigation. Mappingscenarios can also help detect changes in customer behavior over time, and alert the organization of any potential money laundering or terrorist financing risks.

 1: AML Scenarios: Transaction Monitoring Challenges - Unit21, page 1.

Using self-hosted wallets, or wallets that are stored on the user’s computer, is one of the tactics that may be used to finance terrorism with virtual assets such as Bitcoin. By creating many different donation addresses that are updated continuously, law enforcement will have a harder time tracing transactions. It is also important to note that using the same donation address across multiple donation campaigns and media types, as well as forming relationships with virtual asset service providers that have strong KYC processes in place, can draw attention from law enforcement and should be avoided.

TheFATF 40 Recommendationsprovide aglobal AML/CFT framework, and theImmediate Outcomesassess effectiveness.

Option A (Correct):Therisk-based approach (RBA)is the foundation ofmodern AML complianceand is mandated byFATF Recommendation 1.

Option B (Incorrect):Interpretive notes are public documentsavailable to all jurisdictions, not private.

Option C (Incorrect):The40 Recommendations are regularly updated, incorporating new technology (e.g., virtual assets in 2019).

Option D (Incorrect):The11 Immediate Outcomesassess theeffectiveness of AML systems globally, not just for high-risk countries.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the best practices for conducting an internal investigation is to request formal company authorization to conduct the investigation. Such authorization should be granted, if possible, by the board of directors or audit committee, as this will help to establish the independence and legitimacy of the investigation, as well as the protection of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine1. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Refusing to provide any records or documents to law enforcement may be seen as obstructing justice or violating regulatory obligations, and may also result in the loss of the privilege or the imposition of sanctions or penalties23.

C. Letting the bank hire any and all contract investigators may compromise the quality and integrity of the investigation, as well as the protection of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as the investigators may not be properly supervised or instructed by legal counsel, or may not be covered by the Kovel doctrine45.

D. Not marking files or documents with privileged and confidential: attorney-client privilege and/or work-product may undermine the claim of the privilege or the work product doctrine, as it may indicate that the materials were not prepared for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or in anticipation of litigation, or that they were not intended to be kept confidential67.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

2: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 151

3: Perkins Coie, Protecting Internal Investigation Materials From Disclosure, Updates, August 10, 2020

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

5: Eversheds Sutherland, Legal privilege of corporate internal investigations under US law - 2019 caselaw update, JDSupra, December 20, 2019

6: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 150

7: Norton Rose Fulbright, Internal investigations: when does privilege apply?, Global law firm, September 11, 2018

According to the Wolfsberg Principles on Correspondent Banking1, an institution should consider the following three elements in its enhanced due diligence process for higher risk respondent bank customers:

The quality of the respondent’s AML and client identification controls: The correspondent should assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the respondent’s AML policies, procedures, and systems, as well as its compliance with applicable AML laws and regulations. The correspondent should also verify that the respondent has implemented appropriate customer identification and verification measures, and that it maintains sufficient records of its customers and transactions.

A risk-based determination as to whether or not the respondent is a shell bank: The correspondent should ensure that the respondent is not a shell bank, which is defined as a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The correspondent should also avoid establishing or maintaining relationships with banks that are known to allow their accounts to be used by shell banks.

Whether a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) has an interest or management role in the respondent: The correspondent should identify and assess the potential risks associated with any PEPs who have an ownership or management interest in the respondent, or who are customers of the respondent. The correspondent should apply enhanced scrutiny and monitoring to such relationships, and obtain senior management approval before establishing or continuing them.

Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Principles 2022 by the Wolfsberg Group, October 2022.

Organized crime groups often use front companies to disguise the origin and destination of their illicit funds, and to integrate them into the legitimate economy. Front companies are businesses that appear to be engaged in lawful activities, but are actually controlled by criminals for money laundering purposes.

One reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to gain control over an entire sector of the economy, such as construction, transportation, or gambling. By using multiple front companies, they can create a network of interrelated businesses that can manipulate prices, evade taxes, and influence public contracts. This can give them a competitive advantage over legitimate businesses, and allow them to launder large amounts of money through seemingly legitimate transactions.

Another reason why organized crime groups use front companies is to comingle their illicit funds with those of legal businesses. By using the bank accounts of front companies, they can deposit cash from criminal activities along with the revenues from legitimate operations, making it harder to trace the source of the funds. They can also transfer funds between different front companies, or use them to pay for goods and services, creating layers of transactions that obscure the money trail.

CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, page 43

A Guide to the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Part 2, page 9

Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, Chapter 2, page 29

Shell companies are business entities that exist only on paper, with no physical presence, no employees, and no operations. They are often used for legitimate purposes, such as facilitating mergers and acquisitions, protecting assets, or managing investments. However, they are also frequently exploited for illegal activities, such as tax evasion and money laundering, due to their ability to obscure ownership and financial transactions12. Money launderers can use shell companies to disguise the origin of illicit funds, evade sanctions, and avoid the anti-money laundering (AML) measures that financial institutions use to detect suspicious activity23. The process typically involves setting up a shell company in a jurisdiction known for strict privacy laws, such as a tax haven, and then using it to move and hide illicit funds while hiding the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries13.

In this scenario, the fact that the company has been a client for many years does not rule out the possibility of money laundering. The company could have changed its ownership, activities, or risk profile over time, or it could have been involved in money laundering all along without being detected. The fact that the company has added several new subsidiaries that are recently created shell companies is a red flag that indicates potential money laundering. The company could be using the shell companies to hide the source and destination of its funds, or to conceal the identity of its beneficial owners. The institution should perform enhanced due diligence on the company and its subsidiaries, and report any suspicious transactions or activities to the relevant authorities.

How Shell Companies Are Used in Money Laundering: A Detailed Guide

Shell Companies and Money Laundering

The Role of Shell Companies in Money Laundering

These designated nonfinancial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) include — casinos when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold………. — real estate agents when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties; — dealers in precious metals and stones when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold; — lawyers, notaries and independent legal professionals and accountants when they prepare or carry out transactions for clients concerning buying and selling real estate; …….; and — trust and company service providers when they prepare or carry out transactions for a client concerning certain activities ….

A bank employee who willfully violates anti-money laundering laws faces the risk of criminal investigation and imprisonment, as these are serious offenses that could result in felony charges and penalties. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, individuals who knowingly violate the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or other anti-money laundering laws could face up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $500,0001. Similarly, in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia,individuals who commit money laundering offenses could face imprisonment and/or fines234.

1: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments, Section 2101 2: UK Government, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 7: Money Laundering Offences, Section 327-329 3: Government of Canada, Criminal Code, Part XII.1: Laundering of Proceeds of Crime, Section 462.31 4: Australian Government, Criminal Code Act 1995, Chapter 10: National Infrastructure, Part 10.2: Money Laundering, Section 400.3-400.9

Penalties for AML/CFT violations, including criminal and civil penalties, fines, jail terms, as well as internal sanctions, such as disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

The Patriot Act, enacted in 2001, introduced several provisions to enhance the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) measures for U.S. banks and their foreign correspondent relationships. Some of the potential issues for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) maintaining correspondent accounts with U.S. banks under the Patriot Act are:

Cancellation of correspondent banking relationships: The Patriot Act requires U.S. banks to conduct due diligence and enhanced due diligence on their foreign correspondent accounts, and to terminate any account that poses a significant risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. This may result in the cancellation of correspondent banking relationships with FFIs that do not meet the U.S. standards or cooperate with the U.S. authorities. The loss of correspondent banking relationships may affect the FFIs’ ability to access the U.S. financial system and provide services to their customers.

Forfeiture of funds in a U.S. interbank account: The Patriot Act authorizes the U.S. government to seize and forfeit any funds in a U.S. interbank account that are involved in or traceable to money laundering or terrorist financing activities. This means that FFIs may face the riskof losing their funds in a U.S. interbank account if they or their customers are suspected or accused of engaging in illicit activities. The forfeiture of funds may have significant financial and reputational consequences for the FFIs and their customers.

Prohibition of correspondent accounts for shell banks: The Patriot Act prohibits U.S. banks from establishing or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence in any country and are not affiliated with a regulated financial group. This means that FFIs that are shell banks or have relationships with shell banks cannot access the U.S. financial system through correspondent accounts. The prohibition of correspondent accounts for shell banks aims to prevent the use of shell banks as vehicles for money laundering and terrorist financing.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 81-841

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III: International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001, Sections 312, 319, and 3132

Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, October 2014, pp. 3-43

A large cash deposit is a red flag for money laundering when it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile, behavior, or business activity. A customer who has never conducted a transaction in cash before may be trying to avoid detection or conceal the source of the funds. A customer who transacts in segments smaller than the reporting thresholds at various times during the day may be engaging in structuring or smurfing, which are techniques to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. A customer who follows a large cash deposit with an immediate wire transfer to an offshore secrecy haven may be attempting to layer or move the funds to a jurisdiction with weak anti-money laundering controls or high confidentiality. These scenarios indicate a high risk of money laundering and warrant further investigation and reporting.

A customer who operates a cash-based business may have a legitimate reason to make a large cash deposit, depending on the nature and scale of the business. However, this does not mean that the customer is exempt from scrutiny or monitoring, as cash-based businesses are also vulnerable to money laundering abuse. The bank should verify the source and purpose of the funds, and compare the deposit with the customer’s expected activity and turnover.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.

Warning signs of money laundering | The Law Society, Section: Cash deposits and withdrawals.

Thethird line of defense (internal audit)is responsible forproviding independent assurance to the Board of Directorsaboutthe effectiveness of AML/CFT controls.

Option C (Correct):Theinternal audit function provides independent review and oversight of AML risksto theboard.

Option A (Incorrect):There is no "fourth line of defense" in AML risk management frameworks.

Option B (Incorrect):Thesecond line (compliance & risk management)is responsible formonitoring AML processes but does not provide direct board assurance.

Option D (Incorrect):Thefirst line (business units) manages AML risks dailybut does not provide board assurance.

Best Practices for Internal Audit in AML Programs:

Ensure audits are risk-based and independent.

Report findings directly to the board’s audit committee.

Regularly test AML controls to assess effectiveness.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods that attorneys may use to facilitate money laundering is to make payments to third parties on behalf of their clients, using funds from their client accounts. This may obscure the source and destination of the funds, and create a false appearance of legitimate transactions. Therefore, making payment to various people is a red flag for potential money laundering in this situation.

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, page 117

FATF Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Vulnerabilities of Legal Professionals, June 2013, page 341

AML/CFT Red Flags for Lawyers, AML-CFT.net, October 20202

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.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6th edition), one of the common methods of money laundering in the insurance sector is to purchase policies with illicit funds, overpay premiums, and then cancel or surrender the policies to receive refunds or payouts1. This allows criminals to move and disguise the source of their funds through the insurance company. Therefore, the regular withdrawals from the policy by the end of the month could indicate a money laundering scheme. Moreover, the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for the Life Insurance Sector states that unidentified third parties depositing cash to the policy could also pose a high money laundering risk, as cash transactions are difficult to trace and third parties may act as intermediaries or nominees for the real beneficiaries2. Therefore, the insurance company should conduct enhanced due diligence on the policyholder and the third parties, and monitor the transactions for any suspicious activity.

According to the CAMS study guide, chapter 1, page 91, placement is the first stage of money laundering, where the illicit funds are introduced into the financial system. Thisstage involves the highest risk of detection, as the money launderers may use various methods to avoid suspicion, such as structuring, commingling, or using cash-intensive businesses. Placement is followed by layering and integration, which are the second and third stages of money laundering, where the illicit funds are moved and disguised through multiple transactions and entities, and then integrated into the legitimate economy as seemingly legal assets.

The other options are not the financial stages of money laundering, although they may be related to some aspects or techniques of money laundering. Option A, integration, is the final stage of money laundering, not the first. Option B, structuring, is a method of placement, not a stage of money laundering. Structuring, also known as smurfing, is the practice of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller deposits or transactions to avoid reporting thresholds or scrutiny. Option C, off shoring, is a term that refers to the relocation of assets or activities to another jurisdiction, usually for tax or regulatory advantages. Off shoring may be used by money launderers to exploit the differences or loopholes between jurisdictions, but it is not a stage of money laundering.

1: ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 1, page 9: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-1.pdf

The customer activity that poses the highest risk of money laundering is making multiple cash deposits slightly below a required reporting limit. This could indicate a practice known as structuring or smurfing, which is a method of breaking down large amounts of cash into smaller transactions to avoid detection or reporting by financial institutions12. Structuring is a common technique used by money launderers to conceal the source, ownership, or destination of illicit funds3.

The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may require further due diligence or monitoring depending on the customer profile and the nature of the transaction. For example:

Transferring funds to pay for flight training lessons could be a legitimate educational expense, or it could be related to terrorist financing or other criminal activities. The financial institution should verify the identity and background of the customer and the recipient, and check for any red flags or suspicious indicators4.

Paying a supplier of precious metals at regular quarterly intervals could be a normal business practice, or it could be a way of moving or storing value in an alternative asset class. The financial institution should assess the customer’s source of funds, business rationale, and market conditions, and monitor for any changes or inconsistencies.

Conducting business in a country that represents a high risk of money laundering could be a legitimate commercial opportunity, or it could be a sign of involvement in illicit activities or tax evasion. The financial institution should apply enhanced due diligence measures, such as verifying the identity and reputation of the customer and the counterparties, obtaining information on the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and screening for any sanctions or adverse media.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs3

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)4

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 29: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-2.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 6, page 121: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-6.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 7, page 139: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 77: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-4.pdf

https://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/sites/default/files/wb/pdfs/wolfsbergstandards/10.%20Wolfsberg-Private-Banking-Prinicples-May-2012.pdf

2.4 Senior Management Approval

The bank's internal policies should indicate whether, for any one or more among these categories, Senior

Management must approve entering into new relationships.

Relationships with Politically Exposed Persons may only be entered into with the approval of Senior Management.

 Antiques are a potential tool for money laundering because they can be used to conceal, move, and convert illicit funds. Antiques can be of high value and often easily transported across borders, making them attractive for criminals who want to evade detection and reporting. Antiques can also be difficult to value and authenticate, creating a lack of transparency and accountability in the market. Criminals can exploit this to inflate or deflate the prices of antiques, or to use them as collateral for loans or other transactions. Antiques can also be used to layer or integrate illicit funds into the legitimate economy, by selling them through auction houses, dealers, or online platforms.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.

Anti-money laundering and the art and antiquities market - a US and UK perspective, Mishcon de Reya LLP, 2022.

Antiques: an unconventional money laundering tool, The Express Tribune, 2023.

Art and Antiquities an Attractive Market for Money Laundering, FATF Argues, OCCRP, 2021.

Thelife insurance industryis vulnerable tomoney laundering and terrorist financing, especially when policies allowpayments to unknown third parties.

Option A (Correct):Allowing policyholders to transfer funds tounknown third partiesincreases therisk of money laundering. FATF andEU AML Directiveshighlight life insurance policies as high-risk products.

Option B (Incorrect):Completing KYC does not eliminate risk. Customers can use legitimate insurance products for illicit purposes.

Option C (Incorrect):While governance violations should be addressed, themain concern here is money laundering risk, not the compliance team’s involvement in product development.

Option D (Incorrect):Fast-tracking approvalwithoutproper risk assessmentcreates regulatory and reputational risks.