Free Practice Questions for ACAMS CAMS Exam

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)are collaborative initiatives involvinglaw enforcement, FIUs, and financial institutions. Their objective is to improve theefficiency and effectivenessof the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes bysharing both operational and strategic intelligence.

Option A – Exchange operational information between public authorities and obliged entities:

PPPs often facilitate real-time or near-real-time information sharing that supportsspecific investigations and the detection of suspicious activity, helping financial institutions respond quickly and accurately to ongoing threats.

Option B – Exchange strategic information between FIUs and obliged entities:

Strategic-level intelligence sharing helps financial institutionsunderstand typologies, risk trends, and evolving criminal methods, thereby strengthening their risk assessments and transaction monitoring frameworks.

Option Cis incorrect: Strategic information exchange between private institutions is limited and heavily regulated.

Option Dis incorrect: FATF does not collect or manage databases of suspicious activity reports; it sets standards and reviews national frameworks.

A, B, C, D are all identified by CAMS 6th Edition and FATF as primary financial crime risks for e-commerce platforms:

A: Platforms can be exploited to launder money by processing the movement of criminal proceeds under the guise of legitimate sales.

B: Use of stolen credit/debit cards for online purchases is a common fraud and ML technique.

C: Fraud schemes (such as chargebacks or fake listings) are widespread on e-commerce platforms.

D: E-commerce platforms can serve as fronts for illicit goods or services, masking the true nature of transactions.

E and F are not commonly cited as principal inherent risks in AML/CTF guidance.

A: The first step in any suspicious activity investigation is to review the transaction history and other relevant account information to establish context, identify patterns, and determine if the behavior is consistent with known typologies of money laundering.

“The initial phase of an AML investigation is to review relevant account information and transaction activity to assess whether a SAR filing is warranted.”

This approach ensures that any subsequent decisions, such as escalation, SAR filing, or customer outreach, are based on a comprehensive understanding of the facts.

FATF standards require financial institutions to adopt a risk-based approach (RBA) that is informed by national and sectoral risk assessments. These assessments identify key threats, vulnerabilities, and typologies within a jurisdiction or industry and provide essential context for institutional risk management.

Financial institutions must reference and align their internal AML/CFT risk assessments with the findings of NRAs and sectoral assessments. This means demonstrating awareness of identified risks and showing how these risks are mitigated through policies, controls, and procedures.

However, institutions are not required to copy or mechanically apply the exact methodologies, weightings, or conclusions of these assessments. Each institution must tailor its risk assessment to its own business model, customer base, products, services, and geographic exposure.

Board oversight is required, but NRAs do not dictate how internal assessments must be written or approved. The key regulatory expectation is alignment, awareness, and effective risk management—not rigid adoption.

Life insurance products vary significantly in their exposure to money laundering risk. FATF guidance and insurance-sector AML standards emphasize that flexibility, liquidity, and cross-border features increase product risk.

Products that allow changes to beneficiaries after policy inception present higher risk because criminals may initially name a legitimate beneficiary and later substitute another party to obscure the true recipient of funds. This flexibility can be exploited to disguise beneficial ownership.

Products with cash surrender values are particularly vulnerable to money laundering. Criminals may place illicit funds into policies and later redeem them, creating an appearance of legitimate insurance proceeds. This characteristic is widely recognized as a high-risk factor.

International coverage, including cross-border health insurance features, increases geographic risk exposure, particularly when funds or claims involve higher-risk jurisdictions with weaker AML controls.

By contrast, annuities with deferred income streams typically limit liquidity, reducing laundering risk. Products that restrict fund transfers further reduce misuse potential and are considered lower risk.

AI and machine learning in adverse media screening can reduce human error through consistent analysis, automate the detection of new versus previously reviewed information, and process multiple languages and scripts, enabling broader and more accurate coverage than human review alone.

Weak KYC policies and procedures represent a broader and more systemic risk specific to casinos and gambling. Without strong KYC, it becomes easier for individuals to engage in money laundering by exploiting anonymity and lack of oversight, regardless of transaction size or method.