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

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

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.

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