ACAMS CAMS Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3MLD) is a legal framework that aims to prevent the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. It was adopted in 2005 and repealed by the Fourth European Union Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) in 2015. The 3MLD applies to a range of entities that are considered to be exposed to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Financial institutions, which include credit institutions, financial intermediaries, insurance companies, investment firms, and payment service providers.

Casinos, which include both online and offline gambling services that involve wagering a stake with monetary value.

Real estate agents, which include both natural and legal persons that act as intermediaries in the buying and selling of real property or rights over it.

The 3MLD requires these entities to implement a number of measures to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing, such as:

Conducting customer due diligence, which involves identifying and verifying the customer and the beneficial owner, understanding the purpose and nature of the business relationship, and applying enhanced or simplified measures depending on the level of risk.

Keeping records of customer and transaction data for at least five years after the end of the business relationship or the execution of the transaction.

Reporting suspicious transactions or activities to the competent authorities without delay and without tipping off the customer.

Establishing internal policies, procedures, and controls to ensure compliance with the 3MLD, and providing adequate training and awareness to staff.

Cooperating with the relevant supervisory and regulatory authorities and financial intelligence units.

The 3MLD does not apply to defense attorneys, as they are not considered to be obliged entities under the directive. However, the 3MLD does apply to other legal professionals, such as notaries, lawyers, and accountants, when they perform certain activities on behalf of their clients, such as:

Buying and selling of real property or business entities

Managing of client money, securities, or other assets

Opening or managing bank, savings, or securities accounts

Organizing contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies

Creating, operating, or managing trusts, companies, foundations, or similar structures

Aproper investigation of unusual transactions requires a mix of data analysis, contextual review, and expert judgmentto assess potential risks.

Option B (Correct):Cross-referencing transactions with external factors(e.g.,political events, commodity price fluctuations, news reports) helps identifypotential links to illicit activities.

Option C (Correct):Therelationship managermay provide insights intowhether a transaction aligns with the customer’s known profile and business activity.

Option D (Correct):Arisk-based approachensures thathigher-risk transactions receive enhanced scrutiny, while lower-risk ones undergo standard monitoring.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Incorrect):Focusing only on transaction amountsignorescontextual factors, such asunusual behavior in low-value transactions.

Option E (Incorrect):Automated alerts are valuable but cannot replace human analysis and judgment.Manual reviews remain necessary for complex cases.

Red Flags in Unusual Transactions:

Large or frequent transactions inconsistent with a customer’s normal profile.

Payments from/to high-risk jurisdictions without a clear purpose.

Use of intermediaries or shell companies to move funds.

Best Practices for AML Investigations:

Use both qualitative and quantitative factorsto assess transaction risks.

Collaborate with business units(e.g., relationship managers) to understand client behavior.

Apply a risk-based approach to allocate investigation resources efficiently.

 the correspondent bank has engaged in a high-risk activity that could expose the primary bank to sanctions violations, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces economic and tradesanctions against targeted foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States1. Opening branches in a country on the OFAC list indicates that the correspondent bank is not complying with the sanctions requirements, and could be facilitating transactions for sanctioned entities or individuals. This would pose a serious risk for the primary bank, which is responsible for conducting due diligence and monitoring of its correspondent banking relationships2. Therefore, the primary bank should terminate the relationship with the correspondent bank to avoid any potential liability or penalties.

The other options are not as compelling as A, because they do not necessarily indicate that the correspondent bank is violating any laws or regulations, or that the primary bank is exposed to significant risks. Option B could be a cause for concern, but it does not imply that the correspondent bank is involved in any wrongdoing, or that the compliance officer has any influence over the correspondent banking activities. Option C could suggest that the correspondent bank is engaging in unusual or suspicious transactions, but it does not mean that the primary bank should terminate the relationship immediately, as it could also be a result of changes in the correspondent bank’s business profile, customer base, or market conditions. Option D is a normal and expected part of the correspondent banking relationship, as the primary bank has the right and obligation to request transactional details from the correspondent bank to verify the legitimacy and source of funds, and to identify any red flags or anomalies3.