Free ACAMS CAMS Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 5

According to FATF Recommendations, reporting entities are strictly prohibited from disclosing to clients or third parties that a suspicious activity report (SAR) has been filed or that an investigation is ongoing. This prohibition, known as "tipping off," is designed to preserve the integrity of investigations and prevent suspects from taking evasive actions.

This scenario describes the risk assessment element of an anti-financial crime (AFC) compliance program. FATF standards require organizations to regularly assess and reassess their money laundering and terrorist financing risks, particularly when there are material changes to business models, geographic exposure, or regulatory environments.

The MLRO’s review of the company’s expansion into high-risk jurisdictions and identification of vulnerabilities reflects a dynamic and forward-looking risk assessment process. Updating the compliance framework to address identified risks ensures that controls remain proportionate and effective.

Risk assessments form the foundation of the risk-based approach and directly inform decisions on enhanced due diligence, monitoring, governance, and resource allocation. This process is distinct from transaction monitoring, governance arrangements, or training activities, although those elements may be updated as a result of the risk assessment.

Beneficial ownership registers maintained by the country of incorporation are the most reliable external source for verifying beneficial ownership during onboarding, as they are official records mandated by law and typically subject to regulatory oversight.

For multinational financial institutions, regulatory expectations are clear: institutions must comply with all applicable laws and regulations in each jurisdiction where they operate or where a transaction has regulatory touchpoints.

In this case, the transaction is subject to both U.S. and EU AML/CFT frameworks, including BSA reporting obligations, OFAC sanctions screening, 6AMLD requirements, and EBA supervisory expectations. Selecting only one regulatory regime would expose the institution to compliance failures and enforcement risk.

A dual-compliance approach ensures that reporting, sanctions screening, customer due diligence, and record-keeping obligations are met in both jurisdictions. This approach aligns with FATF principles on cross-border compliance and consolidated supervision.

Deferring to the “most stringent” regime is not sufficient, as different rules may apply to different aspects of the transaction. Therefore, simultaneous compliance is required.

The Egmont Group is an international network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) established to promote cooperation and information exchange in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. One of its core principles is to facilitate secure, timely, and lawful information sharing between FIUs.

The Egmont Group provides a framework, standards, and secure channels—such as the Egmont Secure Web—that allow FIUs to exchange intelligence related to suspicious transactions, typologies, and emerging financial crime risks across borders. This cooperation is essential given the transnational nature of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The Egmont Group does not publish reporting standards, act as a regulator, or publicly disclose investigation outcomes. Its role is operational and intelligence-focused, supporting FIUs while respecting confidentiality and national legal frameworks.

Therefore, arranging information-sharing protocols between FIUs is a fundamental principle of the Egmont Group.

A financial institution may disclose a SAR only under a valid court order and after ensuring legal review and compliance with jurisdictional requirements. In most jurisdictions, SARs are highly confidential, and unauthorized disclosure - known as “tipping off” - is prohibited.

Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) are considered higher-risk customers under FATF guidance due to their exposure to anonymity, speed of transactions, and cross-border activity. When onboarding a VASP, a financial institution must conduct a thorough risk assessment to determine whether the relationship aligns with its financial crime risk appetite.

Understanding the percentage of higher-risk clients served by the VASP is critical, as it indicates the level of exposure to illicit activity and the robustness of the VASP’s own risk management practices. A high concentration of higher-risk customers may significantly increase money laundering and terrorist financing risk.

Identifying which registered institutions act on behalf of the VASP, such as wallet providers or exchange operators, is also essential. Reliance on third parties introduces additional risk and requires assessment of those entities’ regulatory status and AML controls.

Finally, knowing who the VASP’s clients are, including the proportion of foreign versus domestic customers, is a core component of geographic and customer risk analysis. Cross-border exposure often elevates risk due to differing regulatory standards.

Data privacy practices and the use of central bank digital currencies, while relevant operational considerations, are not primary determinants of AML risk appetite decisions.