ACAMS CAMS-FCI Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The investigator should determine that a nephew of the general (Bank A’s customer) should be flagged as a senior PEP ©. This is because the nephew is related to a senior military official who is a customer of Bank A, which is a high-risk jurisdiction with strict capital controls. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should identify and flag any customers who are PEPs or have close associations with PEPs, such as family members or business partners” (p. 24). The FI should also conduct enhanced due diligence on these customers and monitor their transactions for any suspicious or unusual activity.

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general should be treated well to avoid reputational damage to the bank (A), as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the bank to legal or regulatory risks. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a high-net-worth individual (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew’s wealth does not affect his potential PEP status or risk level. The investigator should not determine that a nephew of the general is a trustworthy source (D), as this could be biased or inaccurate, as the nephew’s trustworthiness does not depend on his relation to the general or his involvement in the transaction.

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

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

An investigator should avoid escalating a suspicious event to the chief compliance officer if there is a potential conflict of interest, such as when a close family member of the officer is involved in the transaction. In such a case, the investigator should pursue other channels, such as reporting to a higher authority or an independent committee. The other options do not present a conflict of interest and should be escalated to the chief compliance officer as part of the normal procedure.

References: Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 18.