Free Practice Questions for ACAMS CAMS Exam

The Egmont Group is a global network of 170 financial intelligence units (FIUs) that facilitate the exchange of information and cooperation among member FIUs to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences12. FIUs are national agencies that collect, analyze, and disseminate financial intelligence to relevant authorities3. The Egmont Group supports the implementation of international standardsand best practices for FIUs, provides training and technical assistance, and promotes the development of secure and effective communication channels12.

Egmont Group website

Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units - Wikipedia

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide (the 6thedition), Chapter 5: The Role of the Financial Intelligence Unit in Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, page 1532

The FATF measures the effectiveness of a country’s efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing through a process known as mutual evaluation. This process involves peer reviews, where experts from other member countries assess the technical compliance and the effectiveness of a country’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) framework. The FATF has developed a methodology that identifies 11 key areas, or immediate outcomes, that an effective AML/CTF system should achieve, and uses them as the basis for the mutual evaluation. The FATF publishes the mutual evaluation reports, which provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s AML/CTF regime, as well as recommendations for improvement.

1: An effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, FATF, February 2013.

2: Report on the State of Effectiveness and Compliance with the FATF Standards, FATF, June 2021.

3: Financial Action Task Force (FATF) | Meaning, Functions, Impact, Finance Strategists, September 2023.

4: FATF Recommendations, FATF, October 2020.

A financial institution (FI) should exit a relationship when the suspicious conduct of the account holder or the FI’s stated policies and procedures for closing an account warrant such action. A FI has the right and responsibility to terminate a customer relationship that poses an unacceptable level of risk to the FI or violates its AML/CFT program. A FI should have clear and consistent criteria for exiting a relationship, such as the number and severity of SARs filed, the nature and extent of due diligence conducted, the availability and effectiveness of mitigating controls, and the alignment of the customer profile with the FI’s risk appetite. A FI should also document the rationale and process for exiting a relationship, communicate the decision to the customer and relevant stakeholders, and monitor the account until closure.

The reputational risk to the FI posed by closing the account or the request from law enforcement to close the account are not valid reasons for exiting a relationship by themselves. A FI should consider the potential reputational impact of closing an account, but it should not outweigh the legal and regulatory obligations of the FI to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing. A FI should also cooperate with law enforcement requests, but it should not automatically close an account based on such requests, as they may interfere with ongoing investigations or intelligence gathering. A FI should exercise its own judgment and discretion in deciding whether to exit a relationship, based on its own policies and procedures and the facts and circumstances of each case.

Exiting Relationships: Ten Steps to a Successful Client Exit Strategy

De-risking your SARs: Building SAR relationship exit strategies into your AML/CFT program

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

The primary consideration the institution should keep in mind when deciding whether to agree to the law enforcement request is whether the institution can continue to meet its regulatory obligations with the accounts open. This is because the institution has a duty to comply with the applicable laws and regulations, and to protect its reputation and integrity from being associated with money laundering or terrorist financing. The institution should assess the risks and benefits of keeping the account open, and consult with its legal counsel and senior management before making a decision. The institution should also document itsdecision and the rationale behind it, and communicate it to the law enforcement agency12.

1: CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 7: Conducting or Supporting the Investigation Process, p. 143-144 2: FATF Guidance: Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Measures and Financial Inclusion, February 2013, p. 50-51, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/AML_CFT_Measures_and_Financial_Inclusion_2013.pdf

This is a common red flag of money laundering that involves layering, which is the process of moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to conceal their origin and ownership. Layering often involves cross-border transfers, especially to high-risk jurisdictions, and rapid movement of funds to avoid detection or tracing. A compliance officer should prioritize this red flag for investigation, as it may indicate a complex money laundering scheme or the financing of terrorism or proliferation.

AML Red Flags – What are the Top 10 Indicators? - ComplyAdvantage, section “Red flags related to transaction patterns”

AML 101: The 10 Most Common Red Flags - KYC-Chain, section “Red flag indicators related to geographical risks”

Anti-money laundering red flags, page 2, bullet point 5

According to the FATF 40 recommendations, the focus of AML efforts has been expanded beyond financial institutions to include other businesses and professions that are vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. These include:

Casinos, when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above a designated threshold. Casinos are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers, keeprecords of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The designated threshold is USD/EUR 3,000 or more1.

Real estate agents, when they are involved in transactions for clients concerning buying and selling properties. Real estate agents are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Real estate transactions can involve large amounts of money and complex legal arrangements that can be used to conceal the source or destination of illicit funds2.

Trust and company service providers, when they prepare for or carry out transactions for a client concerning the creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements. Trust and company service providers are required to identify and verify the identity of their customers and beneficial owners, keep records of transactions, report suspicious transactions, and implement internal controls and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Trust and company service providers can facilitate the misuse of legal persons or arrangements, such as shell companies or trusts, to hide the true ownership and control of assets or funds3.

The other option, dealers in art, when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold, is not covered by the FATF 40 recommendations. However, dealers in precious metals and stones are covered when they engage in any cash transaction with a customer at or above a designated threshold of USD/EUR 15,000 or more. Dealers in art may be subject to national or regional regulations that impose AML obligations on them, depending on the jurisdiction.

FATF Recommendation 22: Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions: Customer Due Diligence

FATF Recommendation 23: Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions: Other Measures

FATF Recommendation 24: Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons

[FATF Recommendation 25: Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Arrangements]

A law enforcement agency may request account opening documents and account statements from the institution to facilitate its investigation of a suspicious transaction report (STR). These documents can provide valuable information about the identity, background, source of funds, and transaction patterns of the customer, as well as any red flags or anomalies that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activities. Account opening documents may include identification documents, verification documents, customer due diligence forms, risk assessment forms, etc. Account statements may include transaction details, balances, fees, charges, etc.

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 115-116

FATF Guidance: The Role of Hawala and Other Similar Service Providers in Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, October 20131, p. 20

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism, June 20172, p. 11

Funds transfers are electronic payments that move money from one account to another, either within the same financial institution or across different institutions, countries, or currencies1. Funds transfers are commonly used for legitimate purposes, such as remittances, trade, or investment, but they can also be abused by money launderers, terrorists, or fraudsters to move illicit funds or conceal their origin or destination2. Therefore, financial institutions and other entities that offer funds transfer services are required to apply anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) measures, such as customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting of suspicious activities2.

One of the red flags for funds transfers that may indicate money laundering or other criminal activity is when funds transfers are repeatedly sent to the same beneficiary out of line with the business purpose3. This could suggest that the originator and the beneficiary are colluding to layer or integrate illicit funds, or to evade reporting or sanctions requirements. For example, a business may send multiple funds transfers to the same supplier, but the amounts or frequencies do not match the invoices or contracts, or the supplier is located in a high-risk jurisdiction or is subject to sanctions. Alternatively, an individual may send frequent funds transfers to the same person, but the relationship or the reason for the transfers is unclear or inconsistent, or the person is associated with a criminal or terrorist organization. In such cases, the financial institution or the funds transfer service provider should conduct enhanced due diligence, verify the source and purpose of the funds, and report any suspicious activity to the relevant authorities.

1: Wire Transfer Definition - Investopedia

2: International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation - The FATF Recommendations | FATF

3: Wire Transfer Red Flags: Money Laundering & Fraud Risks - Alessa1

Financial institutions closely monitor customer accounts for suspicious activity related to money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. If an account consistently triggers multiple suspicious activity reports (SARs), it raises red flags. These reports indicate unusual or potentially illegal transactions, such as large cash deposits, frequent transfers to high-risk jurisdictions, or patterns inconsistent with the customer’s profile. To mitigate risk and comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, the financial institution may decide to close the account. Regular SAR filings are essential for maintaining the integrity of the financial system and preventing illicit financial flows12.

The potential red flag that alludes to money laundering is option B, where the trio engage in minimal gambling and combine the funds to request a casino cheque for the chips presented. This behavior is indicative of structuring, which involves breaking down large transactions into smaller ones to avoid detection by the casino and regulatory authorities. The fact that the trio only used a small amount of chips to play games, and then combined their funds to request a casino cheque, raises suspicions that they may be attempting to disguise the origin of their funds.

it describes the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with shell banks. This is one of the requirements for correspondent accounts in the USA PATRIOT Act, which is a law enacted in 2001 to enhance the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures in the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act requires that correspondent banks, which are banks that provide services to other banks, such as clearing, settlement, or cash management, to obtain a certification from their respondent banks, which are banks that receive services from correspondent banks, to ensure that they are not involved in money laundering or terrorist financing activities. One of the elements of the certification is that the respondent bank does not do business with shell banks, which are banks that have no physical presence or meaningful supervision in any jurisdiction, and are often used by money launderers and other criminals to hide their identity and funds.

The other options are not necessarily the word “certification” as a written representation by a respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although they may have some relevance or importance depending on the circumstances and the nature of the correspondent relationship. Option A describes a possible certification by a federal receiver, which is a person appointed by a court to take custody and control of the assets of a failed bank, but this is not related to the correspondent accounts requirements in the USA PATRIOT Act. Option B describes a possible certification by a respondent bank, certifying that they do not do business with politically exposed persons (PEPs), which are individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions or their close associates or family members, and who may pose a higher risk of money laundering or corruption, but this is not a mandatory element of the certification under the USA PATRIOT Act, although itmay be a good practice or a risk-based measure. Option C describes a possible certification by a correspondent bank, certifying that they do not open correspondent accounts for alternative remittance companies, which are businesses that provide money transfer or payment services outside the formal banking system, and which may pose a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, but this is not a requirement for the respondent bank under the USA PATRIOT Act, although it may be a regulatory obligation or a risk-based measure for the correspondent bank.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - 6th Edition1

Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition)2

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide - 6th Edition, Chapter 7, pages 156-157

https://www.acams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ACAMS-CAMS-Study-Guide-6th-Edition-Chapter-7.pdf

According to the third European Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing1, Member States may allow the identity verification of the beneficiary under the policy to be carried out at or before the time of payout or before the beneficiary intends to exercise rights vested under the policy, provided that the following conditions are met:

the beneficiary is identified as a natural or legal person or a legal arrangement, and the verification of the identity is not possible earlier, due to the nature of the product or the transaction;

there is a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, taking into account the type of policy, the product features, the premium amount, and the distribution channel;

the Member States adopt appropriate risk-sensitive measures to prevent the misuse of the policy during the life of the relationship.

This provision is intended to accommodate the specificities of the life insurance sector, where the beneficiary may not be known at the time of the conclusion of the contract, or may change during the life of the policy. However, the Directive also requires that the identity verification of the beneficiary is carried out as soon as possible after the establishment of the business relationship, and that the insurance undertaking applies enhanced customer due diligence measures when the beneficiary is a politically exposed person.

1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15) 2

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 moneyorders 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.

 1: AML in Insurance: How to Detect & Combat Money Laundering, ComplyAdvantage, 5; 2: AML fraud flags: best practices for insurers, Thomson Reuters, 6; 3: Money Laundering ‘Red Flags’: How To Spot Risky Scenarios, ThinkAdvisor, 7

IT expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes. The first EU Directive on Money Laundering, adopted in 1990, was the first major international agreement to combat money laundering. It expanded the definition of criminal activity to all serious crimes and established drug trafficking as a predicate offense of money laundering. The Directive also extended the scope of money laundering beyond drug-related crimes, making it applicable to all serious crimes. This was a major step forward in the fight against money laundering, as it made it easier for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute money laundering cases.

The red flags that should be considered prior to establishing a relationship with a third party are the lack of anti-corruption compliance clauses in agreements (A) and unusual payment or billing procedures requested by the third party (C). According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Sixth Edition manual, "red flags include, but are not limited to: [...] lack of anti-corruption compliance clauses in agreements (page 330) and unusual payment or billing procedures requested by the third party (page 331)."

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) Manual , 6th edition, if a bank's transaction surveillance system triggers an alert for a deposit of 250.000 USD into a client's account, the bank should take the following actions:

Request information and documentation from the client on the background of the transaction (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 46).

Contact the client advisor to learn if he has any insight on the transaction background (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

Review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform (CAMS Manual, 6th edition, page 47).

Discarding the alert as a false positive hit and reviewing the alert if the deposit is made in cash should not be done.

The bank should request additional information and documentation from the client to better understand the nature of the transaction. Additionally, the bank should reach out to the client advisor to learn if they have any insight on the transaction background. Finally, the bank should review the transaction background in the bank's transaction platform to determine if any additional alerts or anomalies are present. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Pages 117-118)

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 Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the FATF mutual evaluation process is a peer review mechanism that assesses the level of compliance of a country with the FATF 40 recommendations and the effectiveness of its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing system. The mutual evaluation report identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the assessed country and provides recommendations for improvement. The assessed country needs to address the shortcomings identified in the report and agree to post-assessment monitoring by FATF, which involves regular follow-up reports and actions to remedy the deficiencies. The other options are not correct, as they do not reflect the FATF mutual evaluation process or the obligations of the assessed country.

Adverse media screening seeks to identify reputational or financial crime risk by:

B: Identifying links to criminal activity or sanctions.

C: Monitoring regulatory actions and updates for risk associations.

D: Regularly scanning news and public records for negative information.

“Adverse media screening involves collecting and reviewing publicly available information, news, and regulatory actions to detect links to criminal activity or reputational risks.”

(CAMS 6th Edition, Adverse Media Screening; FATF Guidance)

Incorrect:

A and E: Customer sentiment and credit scores are not core to adverse media screening.

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’.