Free Practice Questions for ACAMS CAMS Exam

According to the Wolfsberg Group, a global association of leading banks that develops guidance and standards for the management of financial crime risks, both private and correspondent banks should monitor account and transactional activity after the proper identification and verification of customers, as part of their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures12. This is consistent with the FATF Recommendation 10, which requires financial institutions to conduct ongoing due diligence on their business relationships, including scrutinising transactions to ensure that they are consistent with the customer’s risk profile and source of funds3. Monitoring account and transactional activity is a key component of the risk-based approach, as it enables banks to detect and report suspicious or unusual transactions, identify changes in customer behaviour or circumstances, and update customer information and risk assessments accordingly4.

Compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies. This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 595, which states: “Sanctions screening requirements include that a financial institution should compare customer and transaction records against periodically updated sanctions lists provided by governmental bodies.”

A lack of information about beneficial owners is a red flag for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. It is important to identify who the actual owners of the company are to understand their potential risk exposure.

Confusing details about the proposed business activity and lack of knowledge about the proposed business are also red flags for potential money laundering or terrorist financing. This could indicate that the proposed business activity is not legitimate and is being used to conceal illegal activities.

Therefore, these two observations should be escalated to the compliance officer for further investigation.

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) study guide, one of the main challenges of providing on-line services to customers is the verification of theiridentity and the authentication of their transactions1. The lack of face-to-face contact and the use of electronic documents increase the risk of identity fraud, impersonation, and account takeover2. Therefore, financial institutions offering on-line services need to implement robust customer due diligence (CDD) measures, such as using multiple sources of information, verifying biometric data, and applying risk-based monitoring3.

1: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.1, page 103

2: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, page 104

3: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, page 105

 One of the common methods used by money launderers to hide the origin and destination of illicit funds is to create complex corporate structures that obscure the identity of the real owners or controllers of the assets. Lawyers can facilitate this process by providing legal services such as setting up shell companies, trusts, foundations, or other entities in jurisdictions with weak AML regulations or high secrecy. By doing so, lawyers can help their clients evade taxes, avoid sanctions, conceal criminal activities, or launder money. This is why lawyers are considered high-risk professionals for AML purposes and are subject to due diligence and reporting obligations.

= Some of the references that support this answer are:

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, page 77: “Lawyers are often used to create complex corporate structures that can be used to hide the beneficial ownership of assets.”

Money Laundering Reporting Officer: The Role Of MLRO, Section “Money Laundering Risks For Lawyers”: “Lawyers are at risk of being used by criminals to launder money through various means, such as creating corporate entities, conducting transactions, or providing advice.”

New York Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Ponzi Scheme, Money Laundering, Section “Lawyer agrees to forfeit $19 million from investment scheme”: “A New York lawyer admitted Monday to money laundering and orchestrating an $18.8 million Ponzi scheme using his Forest Hills-based law firms, Wisnicki & Associates LLP and Wisnicki Neuhauser LLP.”

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, a U.S. bank that maintains a correspondent account for a foreign bank operating under an offshore license must obtain from the foreign bank the name and address of a person residing in the United States who is authorized to accept service of legal process for records related to the correspondent account1. This requirement is intended to facilitate the U.S. authorities’ access to information and records regarding the correspondent account and its underlying transactions, especially in cases where the foreign bank is located in a jurisdiction that does not cooperate with U.S. law enforcement or regulatory requests2.

USA PATRIOT Act, Section 319(b)(2)(A)1

ACAMS, CAMS Examination Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, pp. 151-152

 Under USA PATRIOT Act Section 311, the U.S. government can impose special measures against a foreign jurisdiction, institution, or transaction that is of primary money laundering concern1. These measures can range from requiring additional recordkeeping and reporting to prohibiting or restricting the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the designated entity2. A payable-through account is a type of correspondent account that allows customers of a foreign bank to access the U.S. financial system by writing checks or making wire transfers from the foreign bank’s account at a U.S. bank3.

In this case, the U.S. government has enacted special measures against a designated entity that has a payable-through account with an EU bank, which in turn has a correspondent banking relationship with a U.S. bank. One of the possible actions that the U.S. bank might be required to take regarding the EU bank’s services for the designated entity is to obtain additional information about customers permitted to use this account. This is to ensure that the U.S. bank can identify and monitor the transactions and activities of the designated entity and its customers, and to prevent any money laundering or terrorist financing risks4.

The other actions listed are not likely to be required by the U.S. government under Section 311. Ensuring the designated entity’s confidential information is not shared with other entities is not a special measure, but a general obligation of any financial institution under privacy laws. Verifying that the EU bank serves the designated entity is not a relevant action, since the U.S. government has already designated the entity as a primary money laundering concern. Performing enhanced due diligence on the EU bank is not a specific action related to the payable-through account, but a broader requirement for any correspondent account under Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act5.

1: USA PATRIOT Act | FinCEN.gov1 2: 311 Actions | U.S. Department of the Treasury2 3: Overview of Correspondent Banking and “De Risking” Issues - CRS Reports3 4: U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS4 5: Fact Sheet: Overview of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act5

A large cash deposit is a red flag for money laundering when it is inconsistent with the customer’s profile, behavior, or business activity. A customer who has never conducted a transaction in cash before may be trying to avoid detection or conceal the source of the funds. A customer who transacts in segments smaller than the reporting thresholds at various times during the day may be engaging in structuring or smurfing, which are techniques to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. A customer who follows a large cash deposit with an immediate wire transfer to an offshore secrecy haven may be attempting to layer or move the funds to a jurisdiction with weak anti-money laundering controls or high confidentiality. These scenarios indicate a high risk of money laundering and warrant further investigation and reporting.

A customer who operates a cash-based business may have a legitimate reason to make a large cash deposit, depending on the nature and scale of the business. However, this does not mean that the customer is exempt from scrutiny or monitoring, as cash-based businesses are also vulnerable to money laundering abuse. The bank should verify the source and purpose of the funds, and compare the deposit with the customer’s expected activity and turnover.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting and Supporting the Investigation Process, pp. 97-98.

Warning signs of money laundering | The Law Society, Section: Cash deposits and withdrawals.

A (Enhanced due diligence): EDD is a key control at onboarding for high-risk customers, involving deeper scrutiny, additional documentation, and approval layers to address increased ML/TF risk.

“High-risk customers must be subject to enhanced due diligence during onboarding to ensure a thorough understanding of potential ML/TF risks.”(CAMS 6th Edition, CDD/EDD for High-Risk Customers)

According to the CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition1, the ultimate responsibility for an institution’s anti-money laundering program rests with the institution’s board of directors. The board of directors is responsible for creating a culture of compliance, approving the AML policies and procedures, appointing the AML compliance officer, overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the AML program, and ensuring adequate resources and training are provided to the staff. The board of directors is also accountable for any deficiencies or violations of the AML program and must take corrective actions when necessary.

CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS

This is the correct answer because the institution must ensure that the beneficiaries of the transfers are not on a terrorist watch list, such as the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List, the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or the European Union Terrorism List. These lists contain the names of individuals, entities, and groups that are subject to sanctions or other measures due to their involvement or association with terrorism or terrorist financing. The institution must screen the beneficiaries of the transfers against these lists and report any matches or hits to the relevant authorities. Failing to do so may expose the institution to legal, regulatory, or reputational risks, as well as facilitate the financing of terrorism.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course1, Module 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Lesson 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards

ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition2, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, pp. 57-58

ACAMS CAMS Examination Preparation Seminar, 6th Edition3, Chapter 3: International AML/CTF Standards, Section 3.2: International AML/CTF Standards, Slide 12

Money laundering through real estate is a common method of disguising the source and ownership of illicit funds. Real estate transactions often involve large amounts of money, complex legal structures, and cross-border transfers, which can obscure the true nature and origin of the funds. The new business customer in this scenario raises several red flags that warrant enhanced due diligence, such as:

The business was established five years ago but has a vague website and no physical presence in the state where it is registered.

One of the principals has an international phone number and lives abroad, which could indicate a foreign shell company or a politically exposed person.

The other principal works out of a recreational vehicle, which could suggest a lack of legitimate business activity or income.

The business claims to be a real estate business, but does not provide any details about its projects, clients, or partners.

These factors suggest that the business may be involved in money laundering through real estate, either by purchasing properties with illicit funds, using properties to generate illegal income, or selling properties to launder money. Therefore, the financial institution should conduct enhanced due diligence to verify the identity, background, and source of funds of the business and its principals, as well as the purpose and nature of the account relationship.

ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination - 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Money Laundering Risks and Methods, pp. 46-47

Enhanced Due Diligence in Construction and Real Estate, by James Swenson, Ethixbase 360

Due Diligence & Legal Considerations in Commercial Real Estate, by Justia

 The board of directors or designated specialized committee should be provided with statistical data regarding SARs filed during the reported period, such as the number, type, and amount of SARs, as well as any trends or patterns identified. This would enable them to oversee the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering program and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Providing too much detail, such as names of customers or copies of SARs, could compromise the confidentiality of the SARs and expose the institution to legal risks.

According to the Basel Committee’s Customer Due Diligence for Banks paper, one of the essential elements of a sound KYC programme is customer identification. This includes obtaining sufficient information to understand the nature and purpose of thecustomer relationship, the source of funds, and the beneficial ownership and control structure of the customer1. For corporate business entities, this means that a bank needs to have an understanding of the structure of the company, such as its legal form, its ownership, its directors, its line of business, and its geographical locations2. This will help the bank to assess the risk profile of the customer, to verify its identity and legitimacy, and to monitor its transactions for any suspicious activities.

1: Customer due diligence for banks, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, October 2001, Section III.2 2: General Guide to Account Opening and Customer Identification, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, February 2003, Section 2.2.1

By delivering the same annual refresher training to all employees, the compliance officer could miss the opportunity to update the staff on any new trends, developments, or risks that have emerged in the anti-money laundering field. For example, new typologies, indicators, technologies, or best practices could be relevant for the staff to be aware of and apply in their daily work. Moreover, the compliance officer could also miss the chance to share any links to enforcement actions identifying violations in other financial institutions that could serve as lessons learned or case studies for the staff to avoid similar mistakes or gaps in their compliance program.

ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course, Module 5: Risk Management, Lesson 5.4: Training1

ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5: Risk Management, Section 5.4: Training2

The first line training program is the training that is provided to the employees who are directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the business, such as sales, customerservice, or compliance staff1. The first line training program should cover the essential knowledge and skills that are required for the employees to perform their roles effectively and in compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) policies and procedures of the organization2. The first line training program should also be updated regularly to reflect any changes in the business environment, the regulatory framework, the customer base, the products and services, or the risk assessment of the organization2.

Among the four activities listed, the one that would require an update to the first line training program is the expansion to customer segments that will utilize newly established products. This is because the new customer segments and products may pose different or higher AML/CFT risks than the existing ones, and the employees need to be aware of these risks and how to mitigate them. For example, the new customer segments may include politically exposed persons, non-resident customers, or high-net-worth individuals, who may have higher exposure to corruption, tax evasion, or fraud risks3. The new products may include prepaid cards, mobile payments, or cryptocurrencies, which may have higher vulnerability to money laundering, terrorist financing, or cybercrime risks. Therefore, the first line training program should be updated to include the relevant information and guidance on how to identify, verify, monitor, and report these new customer segments and products, and how to apply the appropriate customer due diligence and transaction monitoring measures2.

The other three activities do not necessarily require an update to the first line training program, unless they involve significant changes in the AML/CFT policies and procedures of the organization. The implementation of a new system that provides information for monitoring customer accounts may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing AML/CFT processes, but it does not change the nature or level of the AML/CFT risks. The maintenance of regulatory requirements for onboarding documentation collections of a customer base is a routine and ongoing task that should already be covered by the existing first line training program. The onboarding of a new customer type which was previously reviewed and risk rated does not introduce any new AML/CFT risks, as long as the risk rating and the corresponding controls are consistent with the organization’s risk appetite and policy.

1: What is First Line of Defense? | Definition and Overview

2: Training and Awareness | FATF

3: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) | FATF

Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers | FATF

 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 tosecurely 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://egmontgroup.org/

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

A robust AML training program should incorporate the followingbest practicesto ensure awareness and ongoing engagement:

Option A – Tailored and regular training:

Training should berisk-based and role-specific, ensuring employees understand how AML applies to their function.

Option D – Variety and resources:

Use ofinteractive, digital, live, and scenario-based methodskeeps training effective and adaptable. Providing materials and resources supports continued learning.

Option E – Communication and measurement:

Ongoing AML awareness campaigns andfeedback mechanismshelp assess theeffectivenessof training and reinforce its importance.

Option Bis too vague and not recognized as a best practice.

Option C, while helpful, isnot sufficient alone—annual frequency without contextual or tailored content is inadequate.

Real estate ML/TF risk is highest where transparency is low or the origin of funds is obscured:

Use of cash to purchase property (A):“All-cash transactions in real estate present a high ML risk, as they bypass traditional financial scrutiny and facilitate the placement of illicit funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate Money Laundering Risks)

Use of a company for the purchase of property (D):“Purchasing property through companies, especially shell companies, can conceal the beneficial owner and the true source of funds.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Real Estate ML/TF Risks; FATF, Real Estate Sector)

Incorrect Options:

B: Unlicensed agents may be risky, but the core risks are A and D.

C: Trusts may add complexity but are less common/high-risk than company structures.

E: Value manipulation is risky but less so than the above.