Full Access ACAMS CAMS Tutorials

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the situation that is the highest risk for money laundering and terrorist financing activity is A. A customer purchases casino chips, using small denomination bank notes, but does not engage in game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check. This is because this situation may indicate some red flags of money laundering, such as:

Using small denomination bank notes, which may be an attempt to avoid detection or reporting by the casino or the authorities, as large amounts of cash are usually associated with criminal activity1.

Not engaging in game play, which may indicate a lack of interest in gambling and a sole purpose of exchanging cash for a casino check, which is a more legitimate and less traceable form of payment2.

Redeeming the chips for a casino check, which may be a way of laundering the cash through the casino, as the check can be deposited into a bank account or cashed at another location, without revealing the source of the funds3.

The other three options are less risky because:

B. A customer purchases casino chips and engages in significant game play before requesting a casino check for the remainder is less risky, as it may indicate a genuine interest in gambling and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use gambling as a cover for their illicit activities, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person4.

C. A customer purchases casino chips using a credit card and engages in minimal game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a low level of funds involved and a traceable source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit cards to obtain cash advances from the casino, or may use the casino check as a way of repaying their credit card debt or transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

D. A customer purchases casino chips using credit from an account at an affiliated casino and engages in significant game play before redeeming the chips for a casino check is less risky, as it may indicate a regular and loyal customer of the casino and a legitimate source of funds. However, this situation may still require further investigation and verification, as some money launderers may use credit from an affiliated casino to avoid carrying cash or using credit cards, or may use the casino check as a way of transferring funds to another jurisdiction or person.

1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 106 2: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 3: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 5, p. 110

D: “Family members and close associates of PEPs are often used as intermediaries to launder the proceeds of corruption or conceal illicit assets.”(CAMS 6th Edition, Enhanced Due Diligence for PEPs; FATF Guidance on PEPs)

The customer directing the payment of the money borrowed to an unrelated third party is a red flag for potential money laundering, as it could indicate layering or integration of illicit funds. The other options are not necessarily indicative of money laundering, although they could warrant further monitoring or due diligence depending on the customer profile and risk assessment.

The clients are not willing to have their names provided to the bank is a red flag that should stop the agent from discussing this potential purchase further, as this could indicate that the clients are trying to evade customer due diligence (CDD) or know your customer (KYC) requirements, or hide their beneficial ownership or source of funds. According to the U.K. Money Laundering Regulations 2017, real estate agents must conduct CDD on their customers and any beneficial owners, and verify their identity and address1. The U.K. also has a register of people with significant control (PSC) over companies, which requires companies to disclose their beneficial owners2. The use of private companies and wire transfers could also be a sign of layering, a money laundering technique that involves moving funds through multiple accounts or entities to obscure their origin3.

1: U.K. Government, Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Part 2: Customer Due Diligence, Section 5-6 2: U.K. Government, People with significant control (PSC) register, Overview 3: ACAMS CAMS Certification Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 1: Risks and Methods of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, Page 19