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

The best reason the EU bank should file a SAR/STR is that the events raise concerns that the payment represents proceeds from insider trading, which is a form of market abuse and a predicate offense for money laundering in many jurisdictions. The fact that the originator was indicted by U.S. law enforcement, arrested in Switzerland, and extradited for alleged insider trading indicates that there is a strong suspicion that the funds are derived from criminal activity. The other options are not sufficient reasons to file a SAR/STR, as they do not directly relate to the nature or source of the funds.

References: [Financial Action Task Force Report on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks and Vulnerabilities Associated with Gold], page 17 : [Leading Complex Investigations Certificate], page 12

The analyst should clarify discrepancies noted in the customer’s declared profile given the downstream impact on the risk assessment. This is because discrepancies between the customer’s nature of business and the information on the business registry may indicate that the customer is not operating a legitimate business or is trying to conceal its true activities. The analyst should verify the customer’s identity, source of funds, and purpose of transactions to ensure that the customer’s risk profile is accurate and consistent with the Fl’s risk appetite.

References: Leading Complex Investigations Certificate, Module 2, page 9.

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