Free ACAMS CAMS Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 7

Nominee shareholders may be used for legitimate commercial reasons; however, FATF guidance identifies nominee arrangements as a significant money laundering risk when they obscure beneficial ownership.

The greatest risk arises when nominee shareholders provide anonymity to the true beneficial owner, preventing transparency in public registers and complicating due diligence. Criminals may exploit this opacity to conceal ownership, evade sanctions, launder illicit proceeds, or avoid tax and regulatory scrutiny.

The ability to hide ownership undermines one of the core objectives of AML/CFT frameworks: identifying and verifying beneficial owners. As a result, regulators require enhanced due diligence and clear documentation when nominee shareholders are involved.

Other features—such as administrative efficiency, compliance with local laws, or ease of share transfer—do not inherently increase financial crime risk when transparency and disclosure requirements are met.

When developing and maintaining AML policies, standards, and procedures, banks should rely on the National Risk Assessment, regulatory guidance or publications, and guidance issued by international bodies to ensure their frameworks align with both domestic and global best practices and risk considerations.

E-commerce platforms face KYC challenges due to a global and diverse customer base, making due diligence complex, while criminals may exploit identity fraud to pass KYC checks and facilitate layering in money laundering schemes. These factors increase the financial crime risks for such businesses.

The susceptibility of a company or jurisdiction to ML/TF abuse is significantly increased by:

Permissibility of bearer shares (B):“Bearer shares make it easy to hide ownership and control, presenting a major risk for misuse by criminals.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Beneficial Ownership and Company Transparency)

Rules governing the disclosure of beneficial ownership by the jurisdiction (C):“Weak requirements or loopholes in beneficial ownership disclosure are frequently exploited to conceal criminal involvement in corporate structures.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Chapter: Legal Persons and Arrangements)

Incorrect Options:

A: High or low fees are not a significant ML/TF risk driver.

D: Ease of travel is unrelated to ML/TF risk related to company structures.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies support the risk-based approach (RBA) to AML compliance by enhancing an institution’s ability to identify, assess, and prioritize financial crime risks. Regulatory guidance emphasizes that these technologies should augment—not replace—human judgment.

One key benefit is advanced customer risk assessment. AI and ML can synthesize large volumes of customer data, including background information, transaction behavior, and external risk indicators, allowing institutions to develop more accurate and dynamic risk profiles.

AI and ML also enable the identification of complex networks among seemingly unrelated clients. Through network analytics and pattern recognition, these tools can uncover hidden relationships used in layering and structuring activities.

Additionally, AI-driven systems excel at detecting complex money laundering patterns within transaction data that may not trigger traditional rule-based alerts, improving effectiveness and efficiency.

Automatically generating SARs or adapting thresholds without human oversight is inconsistent with regulatory expectations. Human review and governance remain essential components of AML compliance.

Shell companies and other high-risk business structures are commonly associated with money laundering schemes designed to obscure ownership and transaction purpose. FATF guidance identifies several red flags indicative of such misuse.

A mismatch between goods or services and the company’s stated business profile suggests fictitious or manipulated transactions. Insufficient information on originators or beneficiaries of funds transfers further increases suspicion, as transparency is a core AML requirement. Additionally, payments lacking a clear purpose or meaningful description may indicate layering or attempts to conceal illicit activity.

Conversely, well-documented transactions with established partners and legitimate audit trails are indicators of lower risk. While structuring below reporting thresholds can be suspicious, it must also be inconsistent with standard business practices to qualify as a red flag.