Free Practice Questions for ACAMS CAMS-FCI Exam

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.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS

The best reason for an investigator to continue an investigation is that the end-user is a military force. This is because supplying aviation parts to a military force may involve sanctions risk, export control risk, or human rights risk, depending on the nature and destination of the military force. The investigator should conduct further due diligence to determine if the customer is complying with the relevant laws and regulations, and if the bank is exposed to any reputational or legal risk by providing services to the customer.

References:

Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …

Former Airline Employee and Aircraft Part Sellers Charged in Kickback …

Former airline employee and aircraft part sellers charged in kickback …

The best next steps for the investigator to take are:

A. Review the customer’s transaction history. This can help the investigator identify any patterns or anomalies in the customer’s account activity, such as changes in transaction volume, frequency, amount, source, destination, purpose, etc. The investigator can also compare the customer’s transaction history with their KYC profile and risk rating to assess if there are any discrepancies or inconsistencies.

C. Check internal KYC information. This can help the investigator verify the customer’s identity, business nature, ownership structure, expected activity, source of funds, etc. The investigator can also update or enhance the customer’s KYC information based on any new or relevant information obtained from other sources.

E Conduct adverse media and open-source searches on the customer’s background. This can help the investigator find out if there is any negative or adverse information about the customer in public data sources, such as news articles, social media posts, blogs, forums, etc. Adverse media and open-source searches can also provide additional context and insight into the customer’s reputation, behavior, associations, etc. The other options are incorrect because:

B. Request information from the internet service provider who hosts the website is not feasible, as it may require a legal process or a court order to obtain such information. Moreover, the internet service provider may not have or disclose any useful information about the website or its owner.

D. Research other customer accounts for transactions to the same website is not relevant, as it may not provide any meaningful information about the customer under investigation. Furthermore, it may violate the privacy and confidentiality of other customers who are not related to the investigation.

F. Identify if the customer has opened accounts in an urban city area is not helpful, as it may not have any bearing on the customer’s involvement in a drug or drug paraphernalia purchase. Additionally, it may not be possible to access or verify such information without the customer’s consent or authorization.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS, Section 2: Investigating Financial Crimes, page 11

Leading Complex Investigations Certificate | ACAMS, Module 3: Conducting Research and Analysis, page 6

Adverse Media Screening - Using AI to Mitigate Risk

Legal requirements for adverse media screening - Thomson Reuters

Electronic client due diligence | Ethics helpsheets | ICAEW

6AMLD & FATF: Where Adverse Media Screening Fits In

Free Adverse Media Check | NameScan

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the use of large amounts of cash is a common method for money launderers to move illicit funds [1]. Purchasing luxury items with cash can indicate an attempt to convert illegal funds into tangible assets that can be easily resold or moved across borders. As a result, businesses that deal with luxury items are required to implement enhanced due diligence measures, including monitoring transactions involving large amounts of cash [1].

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from insider trading, which is a form of market abuse and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions. The fact that the originator was indicted by U.S. law enforcement, arrested in Switzerland, and extradited for alleged insider trading indicates that there is a strong suspicion that the funds are derived from criminal activity. The other options are not sufficient reasons to file a SAR/STR, as they do not directly relate to the nature or source of the funds.

References: [Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks and Vulnerabilities Associated with Gold], page 17 : [Leading Complex Investigations Certificate], page 12

According to the CAMS manual 6th edition, the USA PATRIOT Act allows the US government to subpoena documents from foreign financial institutions (FIs) that have no presence in the US (option B). The manual states that "The USA PATRIOT Act provides US law enforcement agencies with the power to subpoena documents from foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with US banks or have no presence in the United States" (p. 77).

The fact that should not be included in the SAR/STR narrative is the request by law enforcement (D). This is because the request by law enforcement is confidential and should not be disclosed to the customer or anyone else who is not authorized to know it. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should not include any reference to the LE request in the SAR/STR narrative, as this could compromise the LE investigation or alert the customer of the suspicion” (p. 35). The FI should also not inform the customer of the LE request or delay filing the SAR/STR because of it.

The other facts should be included in the SAR/STR narrative, as they are relevant and indicative of human trafficking money laundering. The air travel and hotel expenses (A) show that the customer is involved in moving people across different locations, which could be a sign of human smuggling or trafficking. The time of the cash deposits (B) shows that the customer is receiving cash payments during unusual hours, which could be a sign of illicit activities or services. The sporting event © shows that the customer is exploiting a high-demand situation for their business, which could be a sign of opportunistic or organized crime.

The best next step in the investigation is to check the jurisdiction’s list of known charities with connections to terrorist activity ©. This is because the FI has a responsibility to verify the legitimacy and reputation of the beneficiary of the funds, especially if it is a charity or non-profit organization that operates in a high-risk jurisdiction or sector. 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 check if the beneficiary is consistent with the customer’s profile and expected activity.

The other options are not as appropriate or effective as option C. Contacting the financial institution in Turkey that has a relationship with Forever Free and advising them of the investigation (A) could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or beneficiary of the suspicion. Updating the customer profile to include Forever Free as the recipient of the funds (B) could be premature or inaccurate, as it does not verify the nature and purpose of the transfer or the identity and legitimacy of the beneficiary. Filing a SAR/STR with the new information learned about the beneficiary (D) could also be premature or incomplete, as it does not confirm if there is any suspicious or criminal activity involved in the transfer or if there are any other red flags or indicators.

A product of analysis is a conclusion or inference that is derived from facts or judgments, using analytical techniques or tools. Option B is a product of analysis because it implies that the investigator has used a tool or technique, such as a threshold analysis, to identify a pattern of structured cash deposits that may indicate an attempt to evade reporting requirements. The other options are facts or judgments that can be verified by evidence or observation.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 23.