CAMS-FCI Exam Dumps : Advanced CAMS-Financial Crimes Investigations

The actions that the investigator should recommend to mitigate risk are conducting enhanced due diligence (D) and re-evaluating the customer risk profile (E). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to obtain more information and evidence about the nature and purpose of the transactions, the source and destination of the funds, and the identity and legitimacy of the parties involved. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries” (p. 24). The FI should also “re-assess the customer risk profile based on any new information obtained during the investigation, and adjust the customer due diligence and monitoring requirements accordingly” (p. 25).

The other options are not as appropriate or effective as options D and E. The investigator should not recommend exiting the relationship with the customer (A), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not recommend documenting and maintaining a file with the investigative findings (B), as this is not an action to mitigate risk, but rather a standard procedure for any investigation. The investigator should not recommend discussing the investigation findings with the customer ©, as this could compromise the integrity and objectivity of the investigation, as well as expose the FI to legal or regulatory risks.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide

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 investigator should proceed in this situation by conducting the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP (A) and sending a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date (D). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to continue their analysis of the suspicious activity without being biased by the potential PEP status of the customer’s relative, and they ensure that the FI has accurate and current information about its customers and their associates. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries” (p. 24). The FI should also “update the customer profile with any new information obtained during the investigation” (p. 25).

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not refer the newly identified customer’s account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP (B), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP (E), as this could also be premature or unnecessary, as well as potentially misleading or inaccurate. The investigator should not use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process ©, as this could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or their relative of the suspicion.

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