Free ACAMS CAMS Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 4

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.

 According to the Basel Committee guidelines, banks should formulate a customer acceptance policy and a tiered customer identification programme that involves more extensive due diligence for higher risk customers12. The customer acceptance policy should be approved by senior management and include clear guidelines on the types of customers that are likely to pose a higher than average risk to the bank1. Senior management should also ensure that the bank has adequate resources and systems to effectively manage the risks associated with higher risk customers1. Therefore, senior management should determine whether or not to enter business relationships with higher risk customers, based on the bank’s risk appetite, policies, and procedures.

A risk-based approach is central to AML/CFT programs and includes:

A: Creating detailed risk profiles for customers based on their behaviors and connections.

C: Applying controls that are tailored to the actual risk (not a one-size-fits-all approach).

D: Performing a thorough risk assessment, considering customer, transaction, and geographic factors.

“A risk-based approach involves risk profiling, tailored controls, and comprehensive risk assessment across key risk factors.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Risk-Based Approach and Risk Assessment)

Incorrect:

B: Monitoring only flagged customers is not sufficient.

E: Equal allocation of resources ignores differing risk levels.

The correct answer is A and D, as these two statements are directly quoted from the Wolfsberg Group’s “Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism” document1. Statement A describes the general role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism, while statement D describes the specific due diligence measures that financial institutions should apply to customers engaged in high-risk sectors or activities. Statement B and C are not part of the Wolfsberg Group’s document, and they are not accurate descriptions of the role of financial institutions in the fight against terrorism. Statement B is too vague and unrealistic, as financial institutions cannot guarantee to drive down terrorism by analyzing activity types. Statement C is too narrow and prescriptive, as financial institutions may not have the resources or the mandate to create dedicated financial intelligence units for terrorist financing.

 1: The Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism – Wolfsberg Statement, page 213-214.

AML compliancemust balance financial crime prevention with data privacy regulationssuch asGDPR (EU) and CCPA (U.S.).

Option B (Correct):Data minimization ensures that only essential data is collected and processed, reducing privacy risks.

Option C (Correct):Regularly updating policies helps organizations align with evolving privacy laws and AML requirements.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Unrestricted access to customer data increases the risk of data breaches and privacy violations.

Option D (Incorrect):Repurposing data beyond AML purposescan violatedata protection laws (e.g., GDPR's purpose limitation principle).

Key Data Privacy Considerations for AML Compliance:

Data minimization:Only collect data necessary for risk assessment.

Access controls:Limit employee access to customer data based on job role.

Transparency:Inform customers about how their data is used for AML compliance.

Arobust customer identification programis critical in preventing money laundering and financial crime.

Option B (Correct):Understanding the nature and purpose of a customer’s business helps banks assess thelegitimacyof financial activity and identify potential risks.

Option D (Correct):Understandingwhya customer selects a particular bank provides insights intopossible risk factors, such as jurisdictional concerns or access to certain financial instruments.

Option A (Incorrect):Limiting online activities is not a standard CDD (Customer Due Diligence) measure. Risk-based controls are applied but do not involve blanket restrictions.

Option C (Incorrect):While online verification is useful,in-person or government-sourced verificationis preferred.

 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 thatliaison 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.

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 FATF Guidance on Politically Exposed Persons1, financial institutions should assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with a business relationshipor transaction with a PEP, their family members and close associates, on a case-by-case basis. This includes obtaining information on the source of wealth and source of funds of the customer and the beneficial owner, as well as conducting enhanced ongoing monitoring of the business relationship. Therefore, the appropriate next step for the analyst is to review the beneficial ownership of the customer to determine if the PEP or any other person poses a higher risk, and to apply additional measures accordingly. Removing the PEP as the authorized signatory, re-categorizing the customer as high-risk, or categorizing the authorized PEP signatory as high-risk are not necessarily required or sufficient steps, as they do not take into account the specific circumstances and risk factors of the customer and the PEP.

Banks within theEUmust comply withAML laws and data privacy regulationsbefore sharing customer data.

Option D (Correct):Information sharing should belimited to what is necessary and proportionate, followingGDPR and AMLDregulations.

Option A (Incorrect):AML laws allowinformation-sharing in certaincross-border investigations.

Option B (Incorrect):Whilelegal review is necessary, aproduction order is not always requiredforAML-related information sharing.

Option C (Incorrect):Data protection laws (e.g., GDPR) must still be respected, even in financial crime investigations.

The Egmont Group’s 100 Cases1, the Financial Action Task Force Typologies2, and FinCEN’s SAR Activity Review3 are all sources of information related to money laundering trends, methods, and risks. They provide examples, analysis, and guidance on how to detect, prevent, and report money laundering and other financial crimes. The Wolfsberg Principles4, on the other hand, are a set of global standards for the prevention of moneylaundering in the correspondent banking and private banking sectors. They are not intended to provide information on money laundering trends, but rather to establish best practices and minimum requirements for financial institutions to comply with anti-money laundering regulations and expectations.

Egmont Group’s 100 Cases1

Financial Action Task Force Typologies2

FinCEN’s SAR Activity Review3

The Wolfsberg Principles4

 The customer activity that should trigger a suspicious transaction report is purchasing travelers checks (cheques) for trips to a Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCTs). This could indicate an attempt to evade currency reporting requirements, avoid sanctions or embargoes, or facilitate money laundering or terrorist financingthrough high-risk jurisdictions12. NCCTs are countries or territories that have been identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as having serious deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and that pose a threat to the international financial system3.

The other options are not necessarily grounds for a suspicious transaction report, although they may require further due diligence or monitoring depending on the customer profile and the nature of the transaction. For example:

The increased activity is due to money order deposits. This could be a legitimate source of income for the customer’s export business, or it could be a way of disguising the origin or destination of the funds. The anti-money laundering specialist should verify the identity and background of the customer and the issuers of the money orders, and check for any red flags or suspicious indicators4.

Wire transfers are coming from a Financial Action Task Force member country. This could be a normal business practice, or it could be a sign of involvement in trade-based money laundering or other illicit activities. The anti-money laundering specialist should assess the customer’s source of funds, business rationale, and market conditions, and monitor for any changes or inconsistencies.

The client changed his address without advising the institution. This could be a simple oversight, or it could be a way of concealing the customer’s true location or identity. The anti-money laundering specialist should update the customer’s information, verify the new address, and check for any adverse media or sanctions.

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 1, page 11: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-1.pdf

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

ACAMS Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, page 97: https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ACAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-5.pdf

Non-compliance with AML regulatory obligations can have severe consequences for financial institutions. Among these, the most severe consequence is the loss of license. When a financial institution fails to meet AML requirements, regulators may revoke its license to operate. Losing the license effectively shuts down the institution’s ability to conduct business, impacting its existence and operations significantly12.

A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering andexchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws1. MLATs provide a legal basis for transmitting evidence that can be used for prosecution and judicial proceedings, such as witness statements, bank records, search and seizure orders, and asset forfeiture2. MLATs also facilitate the cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities of different jurisdictions in investigating and prosecuting transnational crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, and cybercrime3. The other options are incorrect because:

B. MLATs do not receive reports of suspicious transactions from financial institutions, but rather request specific information or evidence from foreign authorities. Financial institutions report suspicious transactions to their domestic Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which may then share the information with foreign FIUs through other mechanisms, such as the Egmont Group or bilateral agreements4.

C. MLATs do not obtain intelligence that might lead to evidence, but rather request evidence that is already available or can be obtained by foreign authorities. Intelligence is a broader term that refers to any information that is relevant to the security or interests of a country, and may not be admissible as evidence in a court of law5. Intelligence may be obtained through other means, such as covert operations, surveillance, or informants6.

D. MLATs do not issue the Principles of Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), but rather follow them. The Principles of Information Exchange are a set of guidelines that were adopted by the Egmont Group of FIUs in 2001, and aim to enhance the cooperation and communication among FIUs in exchanging financial information and intelligence7. The Principles of Information Exchange are not legally binding, but rather reflect the best practices and standards of the FIU community.

1: Mutual legal assistance treaty - Wikipedia

2: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, page 1

3: The Mutual Legal Assistance Problem explained | wilmap

4: ACAMS, CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4, page 125

5: Intelligence - Wikipedia

6: Intelligence cycle - Wikipedia

7: Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units for Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Cases

The Egmont Group is a united body of 174 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that uniquely support national and international efforts to counter terrorist financing and share financial information per global anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards. Its primary objective is to enhance international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of money laundering and financing of terrorism. The Egmont Group facilitates the exchange of expertise and financial intelligence among FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offenses. While it does not conduct financial investigationsitself, it plays a crucial role in improving stakeholders’ understanding of ML/TF risks and informing policy considerations related to AML/CFT implementation and reforms12.

An effective AML transaction monitoring system must align withthe bank’s operational complexity, risk exposure, and analytical capabilities.

Option A (Correct):The system must be tailored to the bank’s specific risk profile to ensure effectiveness.

Option D (Correct):A strong AML system should support trend analysis to identify long-term suspicious behaviors.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):While vendor controls are important, they do not determine system suitability.

Option C (Incorrect):User access settings should be based on the bank’s internal risk framework, not industry standards alone.

Best Practices for Implementing an AML Monitoring System:

Ensure scalability to adapt to evolving financial crime risks.

Leverage AI and machine learning to enhance detection accuracy.

Integrate real-time screening and transaction trend analysis.

According to the Egmont Group and CAMS 6th Edition, PPPs benefit FIUs by:

A: “PPPs help address challenges around data protection and facilitate information sharing between public and private sectors, overcoming common legal barriers.”

B: “PPPs result in higher-quality reports from the private sector and provide valuable additional informational input for FIUs.”

E: “These partnerships give FIUs increased flexibility and agility, allowing them to respond dynamically to evolving ML/TF threats.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Egmont Group Guidance on PPPs; Egmont Group, Public-Private Partnerships for FIUs)

---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

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards for suspicious activity reports (SARs) information sharing within a financial group, "Financial institutions should establish adequate procedures to ensure that confidentiality of information is maintained and that information is only used for purposes permitted under national law. Where the parent institution is located in a country that does not permit such sharing, financial institutions should take measures to address this limitation" (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, page 476). Therefore, financial institutions must establish sufficient safeguards concerning the confidentiality of information shared for AML purposes.