ACAMS CAMS-FCI Exam Dumps - Actual Questions Answers

The observations at the on-site visits that would justify writing a SAR/STR are signs of severe wear and poor maintenance at the site (A), lights turned off at the site during operational hours ©, and a full parking lot of cars with no staff at the site (F). These observations suggest that the daycare businesses are not operating legitimately or providing adequate services to their customers, and that they may be misusing governmental grants or laundering money through their accounts. These observations are consistent with some of the red flags for fraud identified by ACAMS2, such as:

• Inadequate facilities or equipment for the type of business
• Lack of visible activity or customers at the business location
• Discrepancy between reported income and expenses
• Unusual volume or frequency of transactions

The other observations are not as relevant or indicative of fraud as options A, C, and F. A site located in a commercial building (B) could be a normal or legitimate choice for a daycare business, depending on its size, location, and availability. Visible attendance with children being dropped off by parents (D) could show that the daycare business is providing genuine services to its customers, although it does not rule out possible fraud or money laundering. Visible signage indicating the purpose of building (E) could also show that the daycare business is transparent and legitimate, although it does not guarantee its quality or compliance.

References: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS 2: ACAMS Fraud Prevention eLearning Course Module 3: Fraud Detection Techniques

The best next step in the investigation is to check the jurisdiction’s list of known charities with connections to terrorist activity ©. This is because the FI has a responsibility to verify the legitimacy and reputation of the beneficiary of the funds, especially if it is a charity or non-profit organization that operates in a high-risk jurisdiction or sector. 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 check if the beneficiary is consistent with the customer’s profile and expected activity.

The other options are not as appropriate or effective as option C. Contacting the financial institution in Turkey that has a relationship with Forever Free and advising them of the investigation (A) could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or beneficiary of the suspicion. Updating the customer profile to include Forever Free as the recipient of the funds (B) could be premature or inaccurate, as it does not verify the nature and purpose of the transfer or the identity and legitimacy of the beneficiary. Filing a SAR/STR with the new information learned about the beneficiary (D) could also be premature or incomplete, as it does not confirm if there is any suspicious or criminal activity involved in the transfer or if there are any other red flags or indicators.

The step that the investigator should take next is to flag the nephew as a PEP by association (D). This is because the nephew is related to a general who is a senior military official and 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 file a SAR/STR in relation to corruption involving the nephew and the general (A), as this could be premature or unnecessary, as there is no evidence of corruption or criminal activity between them. The investigator should not determine whether there is a business relationship between the nephew and the general (B), as this is not relevant or material to the investigation, as the nephew and the general are customers of different banks and are not involved in the same transaction. The investigator should not seek senior management approval to continue the relationship with the nephew ©, as this could be premature or disproportionate, as there is no indication that the nephew poses a high risk or requires termination.

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