CAMS Practice Exam Questions and Answers

When investigating an AML event, the following techniques would be used to investigate suspected mule accounts:

A.  

B.  

E.  

When presented with a search warrant, the AML specialist should record the names and affiliations of the agents who conduct the search. This will help in identifying who conducted the search in case there are any issues that need to be addressed later. Additionally, the AML specialist should obtain a copy of the warrant or photocopy the original warrant. This is important to ensure that the warrant is valid and that the agents are authorized to conduct the search. It is not appropriate to ask the agents questions or remember what items they have seized, as this could interfere with the search and potentially lead to legal issues. Finally, leaving the premises to allow the agents to conduct the search is not necessary, as the AML specialist has the right to be present during the search.

 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.

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

ARisk Appetite Statement (RAS)helps financial institutions defineacceptable risk levelsand align them withregulatory compliance and business strategy.

Option A (Correct):Incorporating risk appetite adherence into internal reporting ensures consistent enforcementandaccountabilityacross business functions.

Option D (Correct):Embedding risk appetite into daily processes ensures that compliance is built into the organization’s culture and operations.

Option E (Correct):Training employees on risk appetite awareness helps them understand compliance limits and risk management principles.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option B (Incorrect):Whiletraining managers on "good" risk-takingis valuable,it does not directly enhance risk appetite awareness for compliance.

Option C (Incorrect):Describing risk controls is useful but insufficientfor embedding risk appetite into an organization’s structure.

Best Practices for Implementing Risk Appetite Awareness:

Ensure risk appetite is a key part of regulatory and operational reporting.

Train employees at all levels on risk tolerance boundaries.

Integrate risk appetite considerations into product development and customer onboarding processes.

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, the AML Specialist at a bank should take the following actions upon receiving a confidential alert from law enforcement about suspected money launderers:

Involve the bank’s legal and compliance function to address the gravity of the matter and ensure that the bank’s response is appropriate and lawful. The legal and compliance function can also advise on the bank’s obligations and rights under the relevant laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Perform a search on the bank’s client data platform to determine if the bank has had any business with the named individuals or any related parties. The search should include current and past accounts, transactions, wire transfers, and other relevant records. The AML Specialist should also review any existing customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) information on the potential suspects and update them as necessary.

The other options are not recommended or required actions for the AML Specialist at a bank in this scenario:

Sending out an email to all of the bank’s client advisors to request information on any of the individuals could compromise the confidentiality of the alert and expose the bank to legal and reputational risks. It could also alert the suspects or their associates and hinder the law enforcement investigation.

Reporting findings back to law enforcement only if they are of any significance is not sufficient or compliant with the bank’s obligations to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity. The AML Specialist should report any relevant information or findings to law enforcement as soon as possible, regardless of their significance, and follow the established procedures and protocols for information sharing and reporting.

Responding to law enforcement that their request without a judicial order would breach the bank’s GDPR duty with respect to its clients is not accurate or helpful. The GDPR does not prohibit the bank from sharing personal data with law enforcement for the purposes of preventing, detecting, or investigating money laundering or other criminal activities, as long as the bank has a legal basis and safeguards for doing so. The bank should consult with its legal and compliance function to determine the best way to respond to the law enforcement request and balance its GDPR obligations with its anti-money laundering (AML) duties.

TheEU AMLD provides the legal framework, butmember states have discretionin implementation.

Option B (Correct):Countries canimpose stricter AML lawsthan theminimum EU requirements.

Option C (Correct):AMLDsset the foundation, and member statesimplement local laws.

Option A (Incorrect):EU law takes precedence, and national lawsmust alignwith it.

Option D (Incorrect):AMLDs and local AML regulations areinterlinked.

Option E (Incorrect):National AML rules do not have to be identicalacross all EU members.