CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)

When dealing with correspondent banking clients, banks must evaluate the ownership and management structure of the client in order to assess the risks associated with the relationship. The status of the entity as a state, publicly, or privately held entity, as well as the transparency of the ownership structure, are important factors to consider when assessing these risks. Banks should also take into account the size of the management structure, the regularity of board meetings, and the length of time since the last Wolfsberg Group review in order to determine the risk associated with the correspondent banking relationship.

Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is a form of cooperation between different countries for the purpose of collecting and exchanging information and evidence in criminal matters. MLA is usually governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties that establish the procedures and requirements for requesting and providing assistance. The first valid step in the MLA process is to send a formal request from the central authority of the requesting country to the central authority of the requested country. The central authority is the designated entity that is responsible for making, receiving, and facilitating the execution of MLA requests. The request should contain the necessary information and documents to enable the requested country to assess and execute the request, such as the nature and purpose of the request, the legal basis, the description of the assistance sought, the identity of the persons involved, the applicable legal provisions, and the deadline for the response. The request may also be accompanied by a commission letter of request, which is a judicial document that authorizes a foreign authority to perform certain acts on behalf of the requesting authority, such as taking evidence or statements from witnesses or suspects.

Guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60, 2.61, 2.62, 2.63, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78, 2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.

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

REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS [https://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/pdfs/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf] If a financial institution suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are the proceeds of a criminal activity, or are related to terrorist financing, it should be required, by law, to report promptly its suspicions to the financial intelligence unit (FIU). According to the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) Recommendation 20, a suspicious transaction report (STR) or a suspicious activity report (SAR) is filed by a financial institution or, by a concerned citizen, to the local Financial Intelligence Unit if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a transaction is related to criminal activity. [https://aml-cft.net/library/suspicious-transaction-report-str-suspicious-activity-report-sar/]

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued a paper in October 2001 titled Customer due diligence for banks, which outlined four essential elements of a sound Know Your Customer (KYC) programme. These elements are: customer acceptance policy, customer identification, on-going monitoring of higher risk accounts, and risk management. The paper also recommended that these standards should be applicable to all banks in all countries, regardless of their size, nature, or location.The paper stated that 'KYC safeguards go beyond simple account opening and record-keeping and require banks to formulate a customer acceptance policy and a tiered customer identification programme that involves more extensive due diligence for higher risk accounts, and includes proactive account monitoring for suspicious activities.'1

Customer due diligence for banksby the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001.

Consolidated KYC Risk Managementby the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2004.

Editorial The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision report on customer ...by Journal of Banking Regulation, 2002.

Enhanced due diligence (EDD) is a higher level of customer due diligence that is required for customers or accounts that pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. According to the FATF Recommendations, EDD measures may include obtaining additional information on the customer, the beneficial owner, the intended nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of funds, and the reasons for transactions. EDD is also required for customers or accounts that are from or in countries that do not have adequate AML/CFT systems or are subject to sanctions or embargoes.

Among the four categories of customers or accounts listed in the question, lawyers, foreign exchange dealers, and precious metal dealers are considered as high-risk by the FATF and other international standards, and therefore require EDD. Lawyers may be involved in transactions that conceal the origin or ownership of illicit funds, such as creating shell companies, trusts, or foundations. Foreign exchange dealers may facilitate the movement of illicit funds across borders or jurisdictions, or provide anonymous or pseudonymous services. Precious metal dealers may deal with high-value goods that are easily convertible into cash, or may be used to launder proceeds of crime or evade sanctions.

Retail account holders, on the other hand, are generally considered as low-risk customers or accounts, unless they exhibit unusual or suspicious behavior or transactions. Therefore, they do not require EDD by default, but only when there are specific indicators of higher risk.

[ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition], Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pp. 75-76, 79-80.

FATF Guidance on Correspondent Banking Services, October 2016, pp. 7-8, 12-13.

Customer Due Diligence - Overview, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, April 2018, pp. 1-2, 5-6.

Customer due diligence, The Law Society, accessed on February 9, 2024.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Source Tool for Broker-Dealers, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 16, 2022, pp. 1-2, 5-6.

Political system changes can have an impact on an organization's AML risk as they can affect the legal and regulatory framework in which the organization operates. For example, changes to the laws or regulations related to AML, or changes in the way in which the government enforces AML regulations, can have an impact on the organization's AML risk by increasing or decreasing the likelihood of it being exposed to AML risk. In addition, changes in the political environment or political stability in a specific jurisdiction can also affect the organization's AML risk.