ACAMS CAMS Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 4

The investigator should escalate these concerns to the bank anti-money laundering officer, who is responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the bank's AML/CFT policies and procedures, as well as ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The bank anti-money laundering officer can then decide on the appropriate course of action, such as conducting further investigation, reporting to the regulators, or terminating the relationship with the customer. The other options are not suitable for escalating these concerns, as they may not have the authority, expertise, or responsibility to handle such matters.

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 113-114

FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 20131, p. 19

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 20172, p. 10

The correct next course of action is to request that the new product approval committee include the compliance officer. This is because the compliance officer has the responsibility to ensure that the new financial service complies with the applicable laws, regulations, and standards, and does not pose any undue risks to the institution or its customers.The compliance officer should be involved in the new product development process from the beginning, and provide guidance and feedback on the potential compliance implications and requirements of the new service12.

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 6: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, p.121-1222: FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 2013, p. 28, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Role-of-hawala-and-similar-in-ml-tf.pdf

According to the web search results, the Egmont Group is a united body of 170 Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that provides a platform for FIUs to securely exchange expertise and financial intelligence to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12.The goal of the Egmont Group is to provide a forum for FIUs around the world to improve support to their respective governments in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes345. The other options are not correct because they either do not capture the full scope of the Egmont Group's activities, or they are not the primary focus of the Egmont Group.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol2/239473.htm\

https://www.naic.org/documents/committees_d_antifraud_meetingcc_faqsinsurance_103105.pdf

Paying the quarterly life insurance premium using money orders from two different banks is considered a red flag for potential money laundering.This is because money orders are often used by money launderers to avoid the scrutiny of banks and regulators, and to disguise the source and origin of funds12.Using money orders from two different banks also suggests that the client is trying to evade the reporting thresholds or the record-keeping requirements that apply to cash transactions3. The other transactions are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they may warrant further due diligence depending on the risk profile of the client and the nature of the insurance product.

The branch manager should conduct further investigation before taking any other action, as this activity may indicate possible money laundering or fraud. The branch manager should review the transaction records of the customers and the teller, and look for any unusual or suspicious patterns, such as large or frequent cash deposits, round amounts, structured transactions, or inconsistent information. The branch manager should also interview the teller and the customers, and ask them about the nature and purpose of their relationship, the source and use of funds, and the reason for choosing the same teller. The branch manager should document the findings and report any suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities, if necessary.

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.21

CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.21

CAMS Exam Questions and Free Practice Test, Question 322

The bank should request a formal letter be submitted to verify the validity of the request, as this is the best practice to ensure compliance with the law and protect customer privacy. The bank should not confirm or deny the existence of a customer relationship, nor provide any information without proper authorization. The bank should also not inform the board of directors before responding to the request, as this could compromise the confidentiality of the investigation or alert the customer.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Section 2.3: Data Protection and Privacy, Slide 10

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), Page 51

A customer's account appears to function as a funnel account whereby cash deposits occur in cities/states where the customer does not reside or conduct business. Frequently, in the case of funnel accounts, the funds are quickly withdrawn (same day) after the deposits are made

According to the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), the bank should have a clear policy on how to deal with intermediaries, such as lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, or other financial institutions, that introduce or manage clients on behalf of the bank.The policy should reflect the following aspects1:

The bank should perform due diligence on the intermediary itself, including its ownership, reputation, regulatory status, and AML policies and procedures.

The bank should obtain the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and verify them using reliable and independent sources, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

The bank should assess the level of due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, and determine whether it is equivalent or comparable to the bank's own standards. If not, the bank should perform additional due diligence on the intermediary's clients, or decline to accept them.

The bank should monitor the transactions and activities of the clients introduced or managed by the intermediary, and report any suspicious or unusual activity to the relevant authorities.

Option B is consistent with these aspects, as it states that the bank must obtain the same type of information with respect to an introduced client that would otherwise be obtained by the bank, absent the involvement of the intermediary. This ensures that the bank has a sufficient understanding of the client's identity, source of wealth, and risk profile, and can apply appropriate AML measures.

Option C is also consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and is the account holder with the bank, but that intermediary does not conduct the same level of due diligence as the bank, it is necessary for the bank to undertake due diligence on the intermediary's clients. This ensures that the bank does not rely solely on the intermediary's due diligence, and can identify and mitigate any potential money laundering risks associated with the clients.

Option A is not consistent with these aspects, as it states that when an intermediary introduces clients to the bank, it is not necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary's clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank should obtain and verify the identity and beneficial ownership information of the clients introduced by the intermediary, unless there are legal or regulatory impediments to do so.

Option D is also not consistent with these aspects, as it states that where an intermediary manages assets on behalf of a number of clients and arranges for the opening of accounts for its clients with the bank, and that intermediary is a financial institution subject to similar regulations, it is necessary for the bank to perform due diligence on the intermediary's clients. This contradicts the principle that the bank may rely on the due diligence performed by the intermediary on its clients, if the intermediary is a regulated financial institution that applies equivalent or comparable AML standards to the bank, and if the bank has access to the relevant information and documentation.

1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012), Section 3: Intermediaries

Section 313 of the USA PATRIOT Act prohibits U.S. financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administrating or managing correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks. A foreign shell bank is a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. To ensure compliance with this prohibition, U.S. financial institutions must obtain from each foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account the identity of each owner of the foreign bank and the nature and extent of each owner's ownership interest. This information must be updated within 30 days of any change.

USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov, Section 313

US PATRIOT ACT | State Street