ACAMS CAMS Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 12

List of questions
Question 111

A bank employee recently opened an account for a new restaurant. Daily cash deposits over a three-month period are close to $9,500.
What are two red flags that indicate possible money laundering or terrorist financing? (Choose two.)
The restaurant is located in a different city
The daily cash deposits are so close in amount
It is a new account that has daily cash deposits
The new account demonstrates a steady flow of income
These two options are potential red flags for money laundering or terrorist financing because they could indicate an attempt to avoid the reporting threshold of $10,000 for cash transactions, or to conceal the source or origin of the funds. According to the ACAMS Study Guide, some common indicators of money laundering are:
Transactions structured to avoid recordkeeping or reporting requirements
Transactions inconsistent with the customer's profile or business activity
Transactions involving the use of multiple accounts or locations
Transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions or entities
Transactions involving cash or complex crypto assets
The other two options are not necessarily red flags by themselves, as they could have legitimate explanations. For example, the restaurant could be located in a different city because of market demand, or the new account could demonstrate a steady flow of income because of the success of the business.
ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 41-42
FFIEC BSA/AML Appendices - Appendix F -- Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Red Flags, page 1-2
4 Red Flags of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing, page 1
Money Laundering Red Flags | Key Behaviours and Indicators, page 1
Question 112

One key aspect of the Office of Foreign Assets Control's extraterritorial reach includes the blocking of certain non-United States initiated transactions for or through the United States (U.S.) for benefit of a restricted person or entity.
Under which three circumstances are U.S. banks required to block transactions? (Choose three.)
The transactions are to, or go through, a blocked entity
Those that are by, or on behalf of, a blocked individual or entity
Those that are by or on behalf of a blocked individual and a licensed entity
Those that are in connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity has an interest
Those that are in connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity has no interest
U S. law requires that assets and accounts of an OFAC-specified country, entity, or individual be blocked when such property is located in the United States, is held by U.S. individuals or entities, or comes into the possession or control of U.S. individuals or entities. For example, if a funds transfer comes from offshore and is being routed through a U.S. bank to an offshore bank, and there is an OFAC-designated party to the transaction, it must be blocked. The definition of assets and property is broad and is specifically defined within each sanction program. Assets and property includes anything of direct, indirect, present, future, or contingent value (including all types of bank transactions). Banks must block transactions that: * Are by or on behalf of a blocked individual or entity; * Are to or go through a blocked entity; or * Are in connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity has an interest.
Question 113

To ensure compliance with economic sanctions established by governmental authorities in the jurisdictions where it operates, a financial institution requires that all new and existing customers be screened at onboarding and quarterly thereafter.
Is this step sufficient to ensure compliance?
No, screening should occur promptly after list updates
Yes, this is recommended by the international guidance
No, it is necessary to screen and perform enhanced due diligence on new relationships
Yes, screening all existing customer relationships ensures the institutions is not dealing with a sanctioned individual or entity
Screening customers at onboarding and quarterly thereafter is not sufficient to ensure compliance with economic sanctions, as sanctions lists may change frequently and the financial institution may not be aware of the latest updates. Screening should occur promptly after list updates to ensure that the financial institution is not dealing with a sanctioned individual or entity, or facilitating a prohibited transaction.This is recommended by the international guidance from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Wolfsberg Group12. Screening and performing enhanced due diligence on new relationships is also important, but not the only step to ensure compliance.
CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Sanctions, page 86
The Wolfsberg Group Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire 2014, Section 5: Sanctions Policy, page 12
ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.1: Sanctions
Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 109
The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4th AMLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the Union's financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the provisions of the 4th AMLD is to lower the currency threshold for cash payments from 15,000 to 10,000. This means that any person who makes or receives cash payments of 10,000 or more, whether in a single transaction or in several linked transactions, is subject to customer due diligence and record-keeping obligations. The 4th AMLD also extends its applicability to providers of gambling services, which are now listed as 'obliged entities'.
Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.
EUR-Lex - 02015L0849-20210630 - EN - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.
Key elements of the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Section: Cash payments.
Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, Section: New EU AML/CFT Regulation.
Question 114

What is the currency threshold under the European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive?
3,000 Euros
5,000 Euros
10,000 Euros
15,000 Euros
The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4th AMLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the Union's financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. One of the provisions of the 4th AMLD is to lower the currency threshold for cash payments from 15,000 to 10,000. This means that any person who makes or receives cash payments of 10,000 or more, whether in a single transaction or in several linked transactions, is subject to customer due diligence and record-keeping obligations. The 4th AMLD also extends its applicability to providers of gambling services, which are now listed as 'obliged entities'.
Directive - 2015/849 - EN - Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.
EUR-Lex - 02015L0849-20210630 - EN - EUR-Lex, Article 11 and Recital 23.
Key elements of the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Section: Cash payments.
Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package, Section: New EU AML/CFT Regulation.
Question 115

What are two requirements of United States financial institutions when conducting business with an international institution as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act? (Choose two.)
Performing enhanced due diligence on shell banks
Performing due diligence on correspondent accounts
Visiting the head office of the international financial institution
Complying with Special Measures issued under the USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act imposes several requirements on U.S. financial institutions when dealing with foreign financial institutions, especially those that pose a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Two of these requirements are:
Performing enhanced due diligence on shell banks: A shell bank is a bank that has no physical presence in any country and is not affiliated with a regulated financial group. The USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S.financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for shell banks, and requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that their correspondent accounts are not being used by shell banks indirectly12.
Performing due diligence on correspondent accounts: A correspondent account is an account established by a financial institution to receive deposits from, make payments on behalf of, or handle other financial transactions for a foreign financial institution. The USA PATRIOT Act requires U.S.financial institutions to collect and verify certain information about the foreign financial institution, such as its ownership, licensing, and anti-money laundering policies, and to assess the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing associated with the correspondent account13.
CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), pages 82-84
CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, Candidate Handbook, page 14
ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Video 3.4: Correspondent Banking and Money Laundering Risks
Question 116

What are two risks to institutions for violating anti-money laundering laws as demonstrated by the 2012 HSBC
settlement with United States authorities? (Choose two.)
Forfeiture of assets
Civil money penalties
Loss of bank charter/license
Imprisonment of bank employees
Institutions that violate anti-money laundering laws may face various risks and consequences, such as legal, regulatory, reputational, and operational risks. As demonstrated by the 2012 HSBC settlement with United States authorities, two of the most significant risks are:
Forfeiture of assets. This means that the institution may have to surrender some or all of its assets that are related to the money laundering activities or violations.For example, HSBC agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion as part of its deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice1.
Civil money penalties. This means that the institution may have to pay fines or penalties to the government or other regulatory agencies for violating the anti-money laundering laws or regulations.For example, HSBC agreed to pay $665 million in civil money penalties to various US regulators, including the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency1.
The other two options, C and D, are not as common or relevant to the 2012 HSBC settlement. Loss of bank charter/license may occur in extreme cases where the institution is deemed unfit to operate or poses a serious threat to the financial system. Imprisonment of bank employees may occur if the employees are found guilty of criminal charges, such as fraud, conspiracy, or wilful violation of anti-money laundering laws. However, these outcomes are usually reserved for individuals, not institutions, and depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
1: HSBC announces settlements with authorities, 2012, https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/investors/stock-exchange-announcements/2012/december/2012-12-11-hsbc-announces-settlements-with-authorities.pdf
2: Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and HSBC Holdings plc, 2012, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20121211_33
3: HSBC settles on record US fee, 2012, https://www.dw.com/en/hsbc-settles-in-us-money-laundering-probe/a-16443391
4: HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laundering accusations, 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering
5: HSBC to pay $1.9bn in US money laundering penalties, 2012, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466
Question 117

When must a United States (U.S.) bank block or reject an international funds transfer when there is an Office of Foreign Assets Control designated party to the transaction?
Only if the U.S. bank is involved in the funds transfer
Only if a U.S. person or entity is the ultimate beneficiary
Only if a non-U.S. person or entity is the ultimate beneficiary
Only if the U.S. bank's correspondent informs it of the involvement of the designated party
A U.S. bank must block or reject an international funds transfer when there is an OFAC designated party to the transaction, regardless of the beneficiary or the correspondent bank. This is because the U.S.bank is prohibited from dealing with any person or entity that is on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) or subject to any other OFAC sanctions program1.The SDN List includes individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, that are designated under programs that are not country-specific2. The U.S.bank must also report any blocked or rejected transactions to OFAC within 10 business days3.
Question 118

A law enforcement agent calls a bank anti-money laundering investigator for supporting information about a suspicious transaction report that was filed the previous month.
How should the investigator respond?
Refer the agent to the bank's compliance officer
Send the information to an address provided by the agent
Share the requested information during the telephone call
Require a search warrant before releasing the information
A U.S. bank must block or reject an international funds transfer when there is an OFAC designated party to the transaction, regardless of the beneficiary or the correspondent bank. This is because the U.S.bank is prohibited from dealing with any person or entity that is on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) or subject to any other OFAC sanctions program1.The SDN List includes individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, that are designated under programs that are not country-specific2. The U.S.bank must also report any blocked or rejected transactions to OFAC within 10 business days3.
Question 119

Which action should countries take related to the financing of terrorist acts in accordance with the Financial
Action Task Force 40 Recommendations?
Oppose
Sanction
Prosecute
Criminalize
The FATF 40 Recommendations are the international standards for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing. They provide a comprehensive and consistent framework of measures that countries should implement in their national systems. Recommendation 5 of the FATF 40 Recommendations states that countries should criminalize the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist organizations. This means that countries should adopt laws that make it an offence to provide or collect funds or other assets with the intention or knowledge that they will be used to carry out terrorist acts or support terrorist organizations. Countries should also ensure that such offences are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. Furthermore, countries should ensure that terrorist financing offences extend to any person who wilfully provides or collects funds or other assets by any means, directly or indirectly, with the unlawful intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out terrorist acts or support terrorist organizations. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Criminalize, as this is the action that countries should take related to the financing of terrorist acts in accordance with the FATF 40 Recommendations.
FATF website
FATF 40 Recommendations - February 2012
FATF Recommendation 5 - Criminalisation of Terrorist Financing feb-2019.html
Question 120

A client is a wholesale auto business that operates as a used car lot. The client regularly ships vehicles internationally. In a four-month period, the client received wires totaling $ 1,250,000 from a dealer in Benin in
West AfricA. All wires originated from Benin and were in increments of $50,000.
Account debits made to the account were payable to various transport companies. All incoming checks reference various vehicles purchased. Dock shipping receipts produced by the client to support account activity identify the vehicles but cannot easily be tied to the wires receives.
What is the suspicious behavior?
The dock shipping receipts match the vehicles
Vehicles are regularly shipped internationally
Wires received are in large, even dollar amounts
Account debits are payable to transport companies
The correct answer is C. Wires received in large, even dollar amounts are a suspicious behavior, as they may indicate an attempt to avoid reporting thresholds or to conceal the source of funds.Large and round numbers are often used by money launderers to simplify calculations or to avoid arousing suspicion12. The other options are not necessarily suspicious, as they may reflect the normal business operations of a wholesale auto business that ships vehicles internationally. The dock shipping receipts match the vehicles (A), vehicles are regularly shipped internationally (B), and account debits are payable to transport companies (D) are all plausible and legitimate activities for such a business.
ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course3, Module 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Lesson 2: Methods of Money Laundering
ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide1, Chapter 3: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, Section 3.2: Methods of Money Laundering, pp. 79-80
Question