An analyst reviews an alert for high volume Automated Clearing House (ACH) activity in an account. The analyst's initial research finds the account is for a commercial daycare account that receives high volumes of large government-funded ACH transactions to support the programs. The account activity consists of checks (cheques) made payable to individual names in varying dollar amounts. One check indicates rent to another business.An Internet search finds that the daycare company owner has previous government-issued violations for safety and classroom size needs, such as not having enough chairs and tables per enrollee. These violations were issued to a different daycare name.Simultaneous to this investigation, another analyst sends an email about negative news articles referencing local child/adult daycare companies misusing governmental grants. This prompts the financial institution (Fl) to search all businesses for names containing 'daycare' or ·care'. Text searches return a number of facilities as customers at the Fl and detects that three of these businesses have a similar transaction flow of high volume government ACH funding with little to no daycare expenses.Which red flags would be an indicator that activity is connected to a corruption/bribery typology? (Select Two.)
Answer(s): A,B
The red flags that would be an indicator that activity is connected to a corruption/bribery typology are large checks issued to various individuals with the memos noting "gift", "thank you", "favor" (A) and negative news found on the customer related to government-issued violations for safety (B). These red flags suggest that the customer is involved in paying or receiving bribes or kickbacks to or from government officials or other parties in exchange for favorable treatment or contracts. These red flags are consistent with some of the indicators of corruption/bribery identified by ACAMS1, such as:Payments made to or from third parties that are not directly related to the business Payments made to or from high-risk jurisdictions or sectors Payments made with vague or incomplete descriptions or justifications Negative news or reputation of the customer or its associates The other options are not as relevant or indicative of corruption/bribery as options A and B. Checks issued to an unrelated entity referencing "rent" and "utilities" in the memos © could be a legitimate business expense or a sign of other types of fraud or money laundering, such as tax evasion or shell company schemes. Multiple daycare locations with no active business operations or related account activity (D) could also be a sign of other types of fraud or money laundering, such as embezzlement or front company schemes. The same beneficial owner owning several daycare centers in different locations (E) could be a normal or legitimate business practice, depending on the size, location, and profitability of the centers.
An analyst reviews an alert for high volume Automated Clearing House (ACH) activity in an account. The analyst's initial research finds the account is for a commercial daycare account that receives high volumes of large government-funded ACH transactions to support the programs. The account activity consists of checks (cheques) made payable to individual names in varying dollar amounts. One check indicates rent to another business.An Internet search finds that the daycare company owner has previous government-issued violations for safety and classroom size needs, such as not having enough chairs and tables per enrollee. These violations were issued to a different daycare name.Simultaneous to this investigation, another analyst sends an email about negative news articles referencing local child/adult daycare companies misusing governmental grants. This prompts the financial institution (Fl) to search all businesses for names containing daycare' or 'care1. Text searches return a number of facilities as customers at the Fl and detects that three of these businesses have a similar transaction flow of high volume government ACH funding with little to no daycare expenses. During the investigation, it was determined that some of the checks were issued to a mother-in-law of a PEP and deposited into her account with the Fl. This customer was not found on the Fl's PEP list How should the investigator proceed in this situation"? (Select Two.)
Answer(s): A,D
The investigator should proceed in this situation by conducting the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP (A) and sending a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date (D). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to continue their analysis of the suspicious activity without being biased by the potential PEP status of the customer's relative, and they ensure that the FI has accurate and current information about its customers and their associates. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, "the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries" (p. 24). The FI should also "update the customer profile with any new information obtained during the investigation" (p. 25).The other options are not correct. The investigator should not refer the newly identified customer's account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP (B), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP (E), as this could also be premature or unnecessary, as well as potentially misleading or inaccurate. The investigator should not use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process ©, as this could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or their relative of the suspicion.
1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS
An analyst reviews an alert for high volume Automated Clearing House (ACH) activity in an account. The analyst's initial research finds the account is for a commercial daycare account that receives high volumes of large government-funded ACH transactions to support the programs. The account activity consists of checks (cheques) made payable to individual names in varying dollar amounts. One check indicates rent to another business.An Internet search finds that the daycare company owner has previous government-issued violations for safety and classroom size needs, such as not having enough chairs and tables per enrollee. These violations were issued to a different daycare name.Simultaneous to this investigation, another analyst sends an email about negative news articles referencing local child/adult daycare companies misusing governmental grants. This prompts the financial institution (Fl) to search all businesses for names containing daycare' or "care*. Text searches return a number of facilities as customers at the Fl and detects that three of these businesses have a similar transaction flow of high volume government ACH funding with little to no daycare expenses.During the investigation, new suspicious patterns and trends related to check cashing are observed. The Fl decides to conduct a training to ensure that 1) the AML program is robust and 2) the training program is relevant and appropriate. Which parties should be trained on emerging trends and red flags? (Select Two.)
Answer(s): A,C
The parties that should be trained on emerging trends and red flags are the financial crimes investigation unit (A) and the branch personnel ©. These parties are directly involved in detecting, investigating, and reporting suspicious activity related to check cashing or other types of fraud or money laundering. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, "the FI should provide regular and relevant training to its staff on the AML program, policies, procedures, and systems, as well as on the latest typologies, indicators, and best practices for financial crimes investigations" (p. 36). The FI should also "ensure that the training is tailored to the specific roles and responsibilities of the staff, and that it is updated and evaluated periodically" (p. 36).The other parties are not as relevant or appropriate as options A and C. The loan department (B) is not directly related to check cashing or other types of fraud or money laundering, although it may have some exposure to credit or identity fraud. The senior management (D) is responsible for overseeing and supporting the AML program, but not for conducting or supervising financial crimes investigations. The board of directors (E) is responsible for approving and reviewing the AML program, but not for implementing or monitoring it.
A KYC specialist from the first line of defense at a bank initiates an internal escalation based on a letter of credit received by the bank.MEMOTo: Jane Doe. Compliance Manager, Bank B From: Jack Brown, KYC Specialist, Bank B RE: Concerning letter of creditA letter of credit (LC) was received from a correspondent bank. Bank A . in Country A . in Asia with strict capital controls, providing guarantee of payment to Bank B's client for the export of 10 luxury cars located in Country B . located in Europe. Bank A's customer is a general in the army where Bank A is headquartered.The information contained in the LC is as follows:· Advising amount per unit 30.000.00 EU ·10 units of BMW · Model IX3· Year of registration: 2020Upon checks on Bank B's client, the exporter mentioned that the transactions were particularly important, and a fast process would be much appreciated in order to avoid reputational damage to the firm and the banks involved in the trade finance process. The exporter has a longstanding relationship with Bank B and was clearly a good income generator. The exporter indicated that, as a general, the importer was trustworthy.The relationship manager <RM) was contacted to conduct a full review of the exporter and to conduct a site visit.Feedback from the RM:The RM contacted the exporter for a client courtesy visit, but it was rearranged four times as the exporter kept cancelling the appointments. When the exporter was finally pinned down for an interview, employees were reluctant to provide clear answers about the basis of the transaction. The employees were evasive when asked about the wider business and trade activity in the country.Findings from the investigation from various internal and external sources of information:· There were no negative news or sanctions hits on the exporter company, directors, and shareholders.· The registered address of the exporting business was a residential address.· The price of the cats was checked and confirmed to be significantly below the market price of approximately 70,000 EU, based on manufacturer's new price guide.· The key controllers behind the exporting company, that is the directors and During the investigation, the investigator determines that a nephew of the general (Bank A's customer) is a customer at Bank B . Which step should the investigator take next?
Answer(s): D
The step that the investigator should take next is to flag the nephew as a PEP by association (D). This is because the nephew is related to a general who is a senior military official and a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, "the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners" (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.The other options are not correct. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR in relation to corruption involving the nephew and the general (A), as this could be premature or unnecessary, as there is no evidence of corruption or criminal activity between them. The investigator should not determine whether there is a business relationship between the nephew and the general (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew and the general are customers of different banks and are not involved in the same transaction. The investigator should not seek senior management approval to continue the relationship with the nephew ©, as this could be premature or disproportionate, as there is no indication that the nephew poses a high risk or requires termination.
A KYC specialist from the first line of defense at a bank initiates an internal escalation based on a letter of credit received by the bank.MEMOTo: Jane Doe. Compliance Manager, Bank B From: Jack Brown, KYC Specialist, Bank B RE: Concerning letter of creditA letter of credit (LC) was received from a correspondent bank. Bank A . in Country A . in Asia with strict capital controls, providing guarantee of payment to Bank B's client for the export of 10 luxury cars located in Country B . located in Europe. Bank A's customer is a general in the army where Bank A is headquartered.The information contained in the LC is as follows:· Advising amount per unit 30.000.00 EU ·10 units of BMW · Model IX3· Year of registration: 2020Upon checks on Bank B's client, the exporter mentioned that the transactions were particularly important, and a fast process would be much appreciated in order to avoid reputational damage to the firm and the banks involved in the trade finance process. The exporter has a longstanding relationship with Bank B and was clearly a good income generator. The exporter indicated that, as a general, the importer was trustworthy.The relationship manager <RM) was contacted to conduct a full review of the exporter and to conduct a site visit.Feedback from the RM:The RM contacted the exporter for a client courtesy visit, but it was rearranged four times as the exporter kept cancelling the appointments. When the exporter was finally pinned down for an interview, employees were reluctant to provide clear answers about the basis of the transaction. The employees were evasive when asked about the wider business and trade activity in the country.Findings from the investigation from various internal and external sources of information:· There were no negative news or sanctions hits on the exporter company, directors, and shareholders.· The registered address of the exporting business was a residential address.· The price of the cats was checked and confirmed to be significantly below the market price of approximately 70,000 EU, based on manufacturer's new price guide.· The key controllers behind the exporting company, that is the directors andDuring the investigation, the investigator determines that a nephew of the general.....
Answer(s): C
The investigator should determine that a nephew of the general (Bank A's customer) should be flagged as a senior PEP ©. This is because the nephew is related to a senior military official who is a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, "the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners" (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.The other options are not correct. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general should be treated well to avoid reputational damage to the bank (A), as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a high-net- worth individual (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew's wealth does not affect his potential PEP status or risk level. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a trustworthy source (D), as this could be biased or inaccurate, as the nephew's trustworthiness does not depend on his relation to the general or his involvement in the transaction.
Post your Comments and Discuss ACAMS CAMS-FCI exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the CAMS-FCI content, but please register or login to continue.