CAMS-FCI Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations Questions and Answers

Chain hopping is a technique used by criminals to obscure the traceability of cryptocurrency transactions by converting the funds to a different type of cryptocurrency, often using multiple exchanges or platforms. The other options are not related to chain hopping. References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 38.

The identification details of the beneficial owner and authorized signatory are key for law enforcement’s physical surveillance of cash activity, as they would help identify the person who controls and operates the company and who is responsible for its financial transactions. The company’s operating address is also key, as it would help locate the premises where the cash activity takes place and observe any suspicious movements or behaviors. The identification details of the nominee shareholder and directors are not relevant, as they are not involved in the management or operation of the company. The company’s registered address is also not relevant, as it is likely to be a shell or mailbox address that does not reflect the actual location of the business.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 44-45; [FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership], page 12-13.

According to the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), the financial institution (Fl) should take the following actions:

A. Review the client ' s activity, determine if suspicious activity exists, and report accordingly. The Fl should assess the risk of the situation and determine if there is any suspicious activity that needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities. This would involve conducting a review of the client ' s account activity and transactions to determine if there are any indicators of money laundering or terrorist financing.

D. Inform local LEA and regulator of the request for awareness. The Fl should inform the local law enforcement agency and regulator of the request from the foreign jurisdiction to raise awareness of the situation and determine if any further actions need to be taken.

The investigator should review all client-signed documents relating to all accounts (A) to check for any discrepancies or red flags. The investigator should also perform secondary scans of the client’s other owners/authorized signers (D) to identify any possible connections or associations with the second client or the Paradise Papers. Additionally, the investigator should prepare a relationship flow chart of all existing accounts (F) to better understand the client’s activities and patterns. These steps are consistent with the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, which states that investigators should “review all relevant documentation, including account opening documents, transaction records, and customer correspondence” (p. 23), “conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation” (p. 24), and “use data visualization tools to map out complex relationships and transactions” (p. 25).

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

The most concerning trading pattern for a compliance officer when a new customer has been onboarded in a securities firm is the customer accumulating securities of a low volume counter in small increments on a weekly basis. This type of behavior could indicate that the customer is attempting to obscure their identity or the true purpose of their trading activity, which can be indicative of money laundering or other suspicious activity. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 170).

The SAR/STR narrative should include the suspicious accounts and transactions identified, as well as the reasons why they are considered suspicious. The narrative should provide a clear and concise description of the activity, the parties involved, the dates, amounts, and frequencies of the transactions, and any other relevant information that would assist law enforcement in understanding the nature and purpose of the activity. The narrative should not include the investigator’s subjective opinion, personal tax records, or supporting documentation that is not essential to explain the suspicious activity. Supporting documentation can be attached separately to the SAR/STR form or provided upon request by law enforcement.

This is stated in the Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) manual on page 595, which states: “Potential indicators of money laundering associated with Trust and Company Service Providers include the use of legal persons in jurisdictions with strict secrecy laws, structuring cash deposits into third party accounts, multi-jurisdictional wire transfers with no legal purpose, and frequent deposits to or withdrawals from bank accounts.”

The condition that should be met to satisfy the regulator is that the program is drafted using a risk-based approach to avoid the FI being used as a conduit for criminal activities. A risk-based approach means that the FI identifies, assesses, and understands its exposure to financial crime risks and applies appropriate measures to mitigate them. This is consistent with the international standards and best practices for anti-financial crime compliance. The program being aligned with the financial industry’s anti-financial crime priorities, meeting the minimum requirements of anti-financial crime standards published by a financial industry association, or having no high-severity issues in internal auditing results are not sufficient to satisfy the regulator, as they do not necessarily reflect the specific risks faced by the FI or demonstrate its effectiveness in preventing and detecting financial crimes.

References: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 14-15; [FATF Guidance on Risk-Based Approach for Effective Supervision] , page 7-8.

The SAR/STR should include any information that is relevant to the suspicious activity, such as the customer information, the transaction details, and any other indicators of potential money laundering or criminal activity. The fact that one of the transactors occasionally smelled of marijuana smoke is an indicator that the customer may be involved in the illicit drug trade, which is a predicate offense for money laundering. Therefore, this information should be included in the SAR/STR. References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 25.

The next best course of action for the investigator is to file a SAR/STR on the account activity in relation to a potential funnel account. This is because a funnel account is a type of money laundering scheme that involves depositing funds from multiple sources into a single account, and then transferring them to another account, often in a different jurisdiction. A funnel account can be used to conceal the origin, ownership, and destination of illicit funds, and to evade currency transaction reporting requirements. The investigator should report the suspicious activity to the relevant authorities and document the findings and actions taken. The other options are incorrect because:

A. Completing the monthly review and noting the activity for next month’s review is not sufficient, as it delays the reporting of a possible money laundering scheme and exposes the financial institution to regulatory and reputational risks.

C. Recommending the account for exit due to frequent global transactions is not appropriate, as it does not address the underlying issue of potential money laundering and may alert the customer of the investigation.

D. No further action is required as the customer is already rated at high-risk and the monthly spending is within expectations is not acceptable, as it ignores the red flags of a funnel account and fails to comply with the anti-money laundering obligations of the financial institution.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS, Section 2: Investigating Financial Crimes, page 9

Leading Complex Investigations Certificate | ACAMS, Module 2: Identifying Red Flags, page 5

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)

The correct answer is C. Escalate to the compliance officer/money laundering reporting officer to file a SAR/STR. This is because the financial crime investigator has found evidence of fraudulent documents and false information, which indicate a high risk of money laundering or other financial crimes. The investigator should not contact the client directly, as this may tip them off or compromise the investigation. The investigator should also not report collusion between the cryptocurrency exchange and internal staff, as this is an assumption that has not been verified. The investigator should not request a CDD refresh, as this is not sufficient to address the serious issues identified.

References:

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 291

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 311

Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 331

1: https://www.acams.org/en/certifications/advanced-cams/advanced-financial-crimes-investigations

The correct answer is A and B because human smuggling/trafficking and terrorist financing are both predicate offenses for money laundering that could be related to the client’s activities. Option C is incorrect because there is no indication of narcotics trafficking in the scenario. Option D is incorrect because there is no indication of antiques smuggling in the scenario. Option E is incorrect because there is no indication of tax evasion in the scenario.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 10; Financial Crime Typologies - Intermediate Certificate, Module 2.

The correct answer is A and C because these indicators suggest that the customer is using fraudulent documents and misrepresenting the goods to conceal the illicit nature of the transactions. Fentanyl traffickers often use front companies and falsified invoices to disguise their shipments as legitimate products, such as medical supplies or chemicals. Reviewing the invoices and transportation documents, as well as the FDA product certifications, can help to identify discrepancies or anomalies that indicate fraud or deception.

References: Fentanyl and Fentanyl Analogues: Federal Trends and Trafficking Patterns, page 18; Fentanyl Trafficking Offenses, page 2.

One of the actions that is part of the enhanced due diligence process is collecting beneficial ownership details regarding the client’s account. This is important to identify the natural persons who ultimately own or control the client, and to assess the potential risks associated with them. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), beneficial ownership information should include1:

The name, nationality, and country of residence of each beneficial owner.

The date of birth or incorporation of each beneficial owner.

The nature and extent of the beneficial interest held by each beneficial owner.

The means by which the beneficial ownership or control is exercised.

References:

FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership

" The FATF measures the effectiveness of a country ' s efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing through a mutual evaluation process. During a mutual evaluation, the FATF assesses a country ' s legal and institutional framework, its implementation of measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and the effectiveness of its efforts. The FATF then issues a report with recommendations for improvement " [CAMS Study Guide 6th edition, page 15-16].

The purchase of airplane tickets after receiving multiple small deposits from a crowdfunding platform might suggest that the funds are being used to facilitate travel for terrorist purposes. The other options are not necessarily indicative of terrorist financing, as they could be explained by legitimate reasons or other types of financial crimes.

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.

The first valid step in the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) international cooperation process is for the central authority of the requesting country to send a letter of request to the central authority of the other country. The letter of request should provide a summary of the facts and information required, the reasons for the request, and any specific legal or procedural requirements that need to be met. (CAMS Manual, 6th Edition, Page 233).

The correct answers are B and C because these are the most relevant and reasonable steps for the investigations team to perform enhanced due diligence on the operations of the foreign bank and its customers. Asking for the risk rating, customer profiles, and official licenses would help the team assess the level of risk and compliance of the foreign bank and its customers, who are engaged in a high-risk activity of exporting scrap gold and silver. The other options are not appropriate because they are either premature or ineffective. Rescinding the contract, filing a SAR/STR, or closing the accounts would require more evidence and justification, and they may also damage the relationship with the foreign bank.

References: : Precious Metals & Stones

Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act allows financial institutions to share information with each other, under a safe harbor that offers protection from liability, in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist financing activities. The intended benefits of this information sharing include:

Participating financial institutions sharing information about suspicious activity by customers that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, if a customer is conducting transactions with multiple financial institutions that individually do not appear suspicious, but collectively indicate a pattern of money laundering or terrorist financing, the financial institutions can share this information and report it to the authorities.

Detecting money laundering and terrorist financing approaches and schemes across multiple financial institutions. For example, if a financial institution identifies a new typology or modus operandi of money laundering or terrorist financing, it can share this information with other financial institutions to help them prevent or detect similar activities by their customers.

Obtaining additional information on customers or transactions regarding potential money laundering or terrorist financing. For example, if a financial institution has incomplete or insufficient information on a customer or a transaction that raises suspicion, it can request more information from another financial institution that may have dealt with the same customer or transaction.

References:

Section 314(b) | FinCEN.gov

Section 314(b) Fact Sheet - FinCEN.gov

The FI is required to ensure that the request includes an end date © when it receives a keep open letter from LE for the identified account. This is because the FI has to balance its legal obligations to cooperate with LE and to protect its customers’ privacy and rights. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should request a written confirmation from LE that includes a specific end date for the request, as well as a point of contact for any questions or concerns” (p. 35). The FI should also document the request and its compliance with it, and continue to monitor the account for any suspicious activity.

The other options are not correct. The FI should not contact the client for information relating to the account (A), as this could compromise the LE investigation or alert the client of the suspicion. The FI should not stop filing SAR/STR reports on the account and/or customer (B), as this could violate its regulatory obligations and expose it to legal risks. The FI should not notify LE immediately after new transactions (D), as this could also interfere with the LE investigation or tip off the client. The FI should follow the instructions of LE regarding when and how to share information.

The FIU should cross-reference the databases of international commerce/logistics transactions between the country and WMD proliferation sanctioned states with the corresponding international financial operations of those transactions, as this would help identify any discrepancies or anomalies that could indicate sanctions evasion. The FIU should also evaluate a sample of the amount of false-positive and false-negative alerts that FIs have regarding proliferation sanctions evasion to determine root causes of non-detection, such as inadequate screening systems, lack of training, or human error. These actions would help the FIU assess the proliferation financing risk and provide feedback and guidance to FIs on how to improve their detection and prevention capabilities.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 32-33; [FATF Guidance on Counter Proliferation Financing] , page 15-16.

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.”

The initial focus of the investigation should be to review the customer due diligence documents of each entity and examine the year of incorporation and onboarding channel, as this would help identify the beneficial owners, the source of funds, and the purpose of the business relationship. This would also help determine if the entities are shell companies or have any red flags that indicate potential misuse of legal persons. Using data analytics to extract and analyze the linkages between the different entities would be a subsequent step, not the initial one. Conducting a network link analysis on all customers of the bank would be too broad and time-consuming. Finding out whether customer A has relationships with other financial institutions would be relevant, but not the initial focus. References: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 44-45; [FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership] , page 12-13.

Money laundering through online marketplaces and trade-based money laundering both involve the manipulation of the value or quantity of goods to disguise the illicit origin of funds. Over-valuation of the stated price of goods and no evidence of delivery of goods or shipping expenses are two common indicators of such schemes. The other options are not specific to these methods of money laundering.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, page 29-30.