ACAMS CAMS Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 10 Q 181-200

Visit here for our full ACAMS CAMS exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 181

A client frequently wires funds to multiple accounts in high-risk jurisdictions and provides inconsistent explanations for each transfer. What is the most appropriate response for the bank?

A) Accept the client’s explanations at face value
B) Conduct enhanced due diligence and monitor transaction patterns closely
C) Ignore the transfers because individual amounts are small
D) Immediately block the client’s accounts without investigation

Answer: B

Explanation

A) Accepting the client’s explanations at face value is inappropriate. Inconsistent explanations for repeated transfers to high-risk jurisdictions raise strong suspicions of money laundering. Criminals may attempt to justify such transactions verbally to evade detection, but regulatory requirements mandate that banks investigate unusual or suspicious activity. Simply trusting the client without verification exposes the bank to potential regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and involvement in illicit activity. AML programs are designed to identify patterns of behavior that suggest criminal conduct, and inconsistent explanations are a key indicator.

B) Conducting enhanced due diligence and closely monitoring transaction patterns is the correct response. Enhanced due diligence involves requesting documentation to substantiate each transfer, verifying the identities of recipients, and assessing whether the activity is consistent with the client’s financial profile. Transaction monitoring software should be used to detect unusual patterns, such as rapid movements of funds or transfers to multiple high-risk jurisdictions. The bank should also review historical transaction behavior to determine whether these activities deviate from established patterns. Escalation to compliance is necessary if the client cannot provide credible explanations, and a suspicious activity report may be required if the activity cannot be explained or mitigated. This approach ensures regulatory compliance while protecting the institution from financial crime exposure.

C) Ignoring the transfers because each amount is small is unsafe. Criminals frequently use small transactions to structure funds and evade detection. Regulatory guidance emphasizes the need to assess transaction patterns, not just individual amounts. Ignoring suspicious activity could result in serious compliance failures and legal consequences.

D) Immediately blocking the accounts without investigation is excessive. Regulatory frameworks recommend first conducting investigation, gathering documentation, and escalating concerns appropriately. Premature action could disrupt legitimate activity and expose the bank to liability.

Enhanced due diligence, pattern analysis, and escalation ensure a compliant and prudent response, making B correct.

Question 182

A client uses multiple corporate accounts to transfer large sums to offshore entities but provides no invoices or contracts. Which red flag is most relevant?

A) Potential layering and concealment of illicit funds
B) Routine corporate cash management
C) Standard payroll and supplier payments
D) Domestic bill payments

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Using multiple corporate accounts to move funds offshore without documentation strongly suggests layering and concealment of illicit funds. Layering is a key stage in the money laundering process where funds are moved through multiple transactions and accounts to obscure their origin. The absence of supporting documentation such as invoices or contracts raises significant concern about the legitimacy of the transactions. Enhanced due diligence should be conducted, including verifying the source of funds, tracing the destination accounts, and reviewing corporate records. Escalation to compliance and the potential filing of a suspicious activity report is warranted if the transfers cannot be adequately explained. Recognizing and investigating such red flags is crucial to prevent financial institutions from being used to facilitate money laundering.

B) Routine corporate cash management does not typically involve transferring large sums offshore without documentation. While corporations often move funds internally or internationally, legitimate transactions are generally supported by verifiable documentation. The lack of evidence distinguishes suspicious activity from normal operations.

C) Standard payroll and supplier payments are routine and traceable, often occurring within domestic operations. They do not involve multiple offshore transfers or lack of documentation, and therefore are low-risk in this context.

D) Domestic bill payments are ordinary business operations and do not involve cross-border complexity or layering. They are unlikely to indicate money laundering and are unrelated to the scenario.

The primary concern here is the potential for layering to conceal illicit funds, making A correct.

Question 183

A high-value real estate transaction is being conducted, but the client cannot verify the source of funds. Which factor most increases money laundering risk in this scenario?

A) Inability to verify the source of funds
B) The property is located in a well-regulated domestic market
C) Payment is made using a domestic bank transfer
D) The client has purchased similar properties previously with verified funds

Answer: A

Explanation

A) The inability to verify the source of funds is the most critical factor increasing money laundering risk. Real estate is a common vehicle for integrating illicit funds because high-value properties allow large sums to be moved and invested with minimal scrutiny. When the client cannot provide verifiable documentation such as bank statements, business records, or proof of legitimate income, there is a strong possibility that illicit proceeds are being laundered through the property. Enhanced due diligence requires requesting detailed proof of funds, analyzing transactional history, and verifying whether the client’s financial profile can support the purchase. Escalation to compliance and potential reporting to authorities may be required if the source remains unverified. Without verification, the risk of integrating illicit funds into the legitimate economy is significantly increased.

B) The property being located in a well-regulated domestic market reduces some risk but does not eliminate it. Even regulated markets can be exploited if the source of funds is opaque or ownership structures are complex.

C) Payment via domestic bank transfer is common and does not inherently increase risk. The critical concern is the legitimacy and traceability of the funds, not the method of payment.

D) Previous property purchases with verified funds reduce concern for money laundering risk. The problem arises specifically when new transactions involve unverifiable or opaque funds.

The central factor increasing risk is the inability to verify the source of funds, making A correct.

 

Question 184

A client makes frequent donations to a newly established charity in a high-risk country without providing documentation. Which regulatory concern is most relevant?

A) Potential terrorist financing
B) Routine charitable contributions
C) Tax compliance
D) Standard consumer banking behavior

Answer: A

Explanation

A) The primary regulatory concern is potential terrorist financing. Terrorist organizations often exploit charitable donations to move funds for illicit purposes, particularly through newly established or informal charities in high-risk regions. Even small, regular donations can be structured to avoid detection, making them a key indicator of high-risk activity. Banks are expected to verify the legitimacy of the charity, assess its governance structure, identify beneficiaries, and monitor patterns of donations. Additionally, clients and charities should be screened against sanctions lists and PEP databases. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of a suspicious activity report is required if the donations cannot be adequately explained. Failing to detect such activities could expose the bank to regulatory penalties and reputational damage.

B) Routine charitable contributions are low-risk and would only raise concern if directed to high-risk entities without supporting documentation. Without risk factors, routine contributions are generally not problematic.

C) Tax compliance is secondary to the immediate concern. While donations may have tax implications, the primary regulatory risk is misuse of funds for terrorist purposes.

D) Standard consumer banking behavior does not cover frequent, undocumented donations to high-risk regions. Such behavior is exceptional and warrants investigation.

Enhanced due diligence and monitoring for potential terrorist financing is the correct response, making A correct.

Question 185

Which activity is most indicative of structuring in banking transactions?

A) A client deposits multiple cash amounts just below the reporting threshold over several days
B) A client writes a single large check to a known supplier
C) A business pays monthly rent and utilities
D) A customer transfers funds regularly between two domestic accounts with consistent patterns

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Depositing multiple cash amounts just below the reporting threshold over several days is a classic indicator of structuring, also known as smurfing. This activity is designed to evade regulatory reporting requirements, a common tactic in money laundering. While individual deposits appear legitimate, their cumulative total may be significant. Financial institutions must monitor account activity for patterns indicative of structuring, including repeated deposits under thresholds, frequent transfers, and rapid dispersal of funds. Enhanced due diligence involves verifying the source of funds, assessing whether the activity aligns with the client’s financial profile, tracing subsequent transfers, and escalating to compliance if the behavior is suspicious. Filing a suspicious activity report may be necessary if the structuring is confirmed. Ignoring such patterns could expose the bank to regulatory penalties and reputational risk.

B) Writing a single large check to a known supplier is routine business activity. While verification is necessary, a one-time payment does not constitute structuring.

C) Paying monthly rent and utilities is standard consumer or business behavior. It lacks the characteristics associated with structuring, such as deliberately avoiding reporting thresholds.

D) Transferring funds regularly between two domestic accounts with consistent patterns is predictable and generally low-risk. It does not indicate attempts to evade reporting or conceal illicit funds.

The activity most indicative of structuring involves deliberately splitting transactions to avoid detection, making A correct.

Question 186

A client opens multiple corporate accounts and immediately wires large sums to several high-risk offshore accounts without providing supporting documentation. What is the most appropriate action for the bank?

A) Accept the transfers since the client claims they are legitimate
B) Conduct enhanced due diligence and escalate to compliance if documentation is insufficient
C) Ignore the transfers because the client is newly onboarded
D) Close the accounts immediately without investigation

Answer: B

Explanation

A) Accepting the transfers based solely on the client’s assertion of legitimacy is highly risky. Newly opened corporate accounts with immediate, large wire transfers to high-risk jurisdictions without supporting documentation are classic red flags for money laundering. Criminals often exploit new accounts to layer illicit funds, conceal the origin, and obscure beneficial ownership. Relying only on verbal assurances violates risk-based AML principles, exposes the bank to regulatory sanctions, and could facilitate illegal activity.

B) Conducting enhanced due diligence and escalating to compliance if documentation is insufficient is the correct response. Enhanced due diligence includes verifying the identities of the corporate account holders and beneficial owners, obtaining supporting documents for the transfers such as invoices or contracts, and assessing whether the transaction pattern aligns with the client’s business operations. The bank should also evaluate the regulatory environment and AML controls of the destination jurisdictions. If discrepancies or inadequate documentation exist, escalation to compliance and possible filing of a suspicious activity report are required. This ensures the bank mitigates risk, fulfills regulatory obligations, and maintains a clear audit trail.

C) Ignoring the transfers because the client is newly onboarded is unsafe. New accounts are high risk, and ignoring suspicious behavior increases the likelihood of illicit funds entering the financial system undetected. Regulatory guidance emphasizes monitoring early activity in new accounts.

D) Closing the accounts immediately without investigation is extreme. Regulatory frameworks require due diligence and documentation before taking restrictive actions. Premature closure could disrupt legitimate activity and expose the bank to potential legal consequences.

Enhanced due diligence, verification, and escalation ensure a compliant and balanced approach, making B correct.

Question 187

A client frequently sends funds to newly established charities in regions associated with terrorist activity but provides no supporting documentation. Which regulatory concern is most relevant?

A) Potential terrorist financing
B) Routine charitable contributions
C) Tax compliance
D) Standard consumer banking behavior

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Potential terrorist financing is the primary concern. Terrorist organizations often exploit charitable donations to move funds for illicit purposes, particularly through new or informal charities in high-risk regions. Even small, recurring donations can be structured to avoid detection, making this behavior a red flag. Banks are required to conduct enhanced due diligence, including verifying the legitimacy of the charity, reviewing governance and registration documents, identifying beneficiaries, and screening against sanctions and PEP lists. Patterns of donations should be monitored for unusual or structured activity. Escalation to compliance and filing a suspicious activity report may be required if the donations cannot be adequately explained. Failing to detect such activity exposes the bank to regulatory penalties and reputational harm.

B) Routine charitable contributions are low risk and generally require minimal scrutiny unless they involve high-risk recipients, cross-border transfers, or undocumented activity. The presence of high-risk factors differentiates this case.

C) Tax compliance is secondary. While charitable donations can have tax implications, the immediate concern here is the misuse of funds for terrorism financing.

D) Standard consumer banking behavior does not cover repeated, undocumented donations to high-risk regions. Such behavior is exceptional and triggers regulatory oversight.

Enhanced due diligence, monitoring, and escalation for potential terrorist financing are the correct actions, making A correct.

Question 188

A client deposits multiple cash amounts under the regulatory reporting threshold over several days and then wires the aggregated total to multiple offshore accounts. Which activity is most indicative of money laundering?

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements
B) Routine savings deposits
C) Paying personal utility bills
D) Domestic payroll deposits

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements is a classic money laundering red flag. This method, also called “smurfing,” involves breaking down large sums into smaller amounts to stay below thresholds, then moving funds across accounts or jurisdictions to obscure their origin. The combination of structured deposits and subsequent transfers to offshore accounts indicates layering, a key stage in money laundering aimed at hiding illicit proceeds. Enhanced due diligence should include tracing the source of the funds, analyzing recipient accounts, verifying business or personal rationale, and escalating suspicious patterns to compliance. A suspicious activity report may be filed if the bank cannot obtain sufficient documentation. Ignoring such patterns exposes the institution to regulatory penalties and reputational damage.

B) Routine savings deposits are low-risk, predictable, and verifiable. They lack the deliberate structuring and cross-border complexity indicative of laundering.

C) Paying personal utility bills is standard consumer behavior. Such transactions are ordinary and do not involve layering, offshore transfers, or avoidance of reporting requirements.

D) Domestic payroll deposits are expected and traceable business operations. While they should be monitored for anomalies, they do not constitute structuring or layering.

The most indicative activity of money laundering is deliberate structuring of deposits to evade reporting, making A correct.

Question 189

A client uses multiple corporate accounts to transfer large sums to offshore entities without invoices or contracts. What does this behavior most likely indicate?

A) Potential layering and concealment of illicit funds
B) Routine corporate cash management
C) Standard supplier and payroll payments
D) Domestic operational payments

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Using multiple corporate accounts to transfer funds offshore without supporting documentation is a strong indicator of layering and concealment of illicit funds. Layering is designed to obscure the origin of funds by moving them through multiple accounts and jurisdictions. In this scenario, the absence of invoices or contracts prevents verification of the legitimacy of the transactions. Enhanced due diligence requires tracing the source and destination of funds, identifying beneficial owners of offshore entities, and requesting documentation to substantiate transfers. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of a suspicious activity report are necessary if explanations are inadequate. Failure to detect such activity exposes the bank to regulatory violations, reputational harm, and inadvertent facilitation of money laundering.

B) Routine corporate cash management typically involves transfers that are documented, traceable, and within predictable patterns. Without supporting documentation, the activity deviates significantly from normal operations.

C) Standard payroll and supplier payments are generally domestic, supported by invoices, and traceable. These do not involve multiple offshore accounts or concealment strategies.

D) Domestic operational payments are routine and do not involve complex offshore structures. They are not indicative of money laundering.

The correct interpretation is potential layering and concealment of illicit funds, making A correct.

Question 190

Which scenario most strongly suggests trade-based money laundering?

A) An importer consistently over-invoices goods to move excess funds abroad
B) A client pays routine utility bills on time
C) A customer deposits personal paychecks into a savings account
D) A small business purchases office supplies locally

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Over-invoicing of goods is a classic example of trade-based money laundering. In such schemes, criminals inflate invoices to transfer excess funds across borders under the guise of legitimate trade. The illicit funds are disguised as legitimate business transactions, making detection difficult. Trade-based money laundering often involves complex ownership structures, shell companies, and multiple jurisdictions. Banks must examine trade documentation, including invoices, bills of lading, customs declarations, and contracts, to identify discrepancies between declared and actual values. Enhanced due diligence, transaction monitoring, escalation to compliance, and filing of suspicious activity reports may be required. Trade-based laundering allows criminals to integrate illicit proceeds into the financial system without raising immediate suspicion, making detection crucial.

B) Paying routine utility bills is low-risk and ordinary consumer behavior. It does not involve cross-border trade, manipulation of invoices, or attempts to obscure the origin of funds.

C) Depositing personal paychecks is standard banking activity. While banks monitor for unusual patterns, payroll deposits do not constitute trade-based laundering.

D) Purchasing office supplies locally is routine and does not involve international transactions, structured invoice manipulation, or layering. It is unrelated to trade-based money laundering.

The activity most strongly suggestive of trade-based laundering is deliberate over-invoicing of goods to move funds across borders, making A correct.

Question 191

A client deposits a series of cash amounts just below the reporting threshold over several days and then wires the aggregated funds to multiple foreign accounts. What is the primary concern for the bank?

A) Structuring to avoid reporting requirements
B) Routine savings deposits
C) Standard consumer bill payments
D) Payroll deposits

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements is the primary concern. This practice, also known as “smurfing,” is commonly used to circumvent regulatory reporting thresholds for cash transactions. While individual deposits may appear innocuous, their cumulative effect can represent a significant amount of illicit funds. Financial institutions are required to monitor patterns of transactions, particularly those that exhibit repeated deposits just below reporting thresholds, followed by transfers to multiple accounts, especially internationally. Such behavior is indicative of layering, the process of moving illicit funds through complex channels to obscure their origin. Enhanced due diligence involves analyzing the client’s transaction history, requesting documentation to verify the source of funds, identifying recipient accounts, and assessing whether the transfers are consistent with the client’s financial profile. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of a suspicious activity report may be required if the activity remains unexplained. Ignoring these patterns exposes the bank to regulatory penalties, legal risk, and reputational harm.

B) Routine savings deposits are low-risk and predictable, typically sourced from verified income. They lack the deliberate structuring and cross-border complexity indicative of money laundering. While banks monitor all deposits, routine savings behavior does not raise red flags unless accompanied by unusual patterns.

C) Standard consumer bill payments are ordinary banking activities. Paying bills does not involve multiple accounts, layering, or structured avoidance of reporting requirements, and therefore is not indicative of money laundering.

D) Payroll deposits are traceable, routine, and generally domestic. They lack characteristics associated with illicit fund movement, such as structuring, layering, or cross-border transfers, and are considered low-risk.

The activity most indicative of money laundering in this scenario is structuring deposits to avoid reporting thresholds, making A correct.

Question 192

A high-net-worth client establishes multiple offshore entities with complex ownership structures but provides minimal information regarding beneficial ownership or source of funds. What is the most appropriate response for the bank?

A) Accept the client’s arrangements as normal asset management
B) Conduct enhanced due diligence on all offshore entities and beneficial owners
C) Ignore the structures because the client has a long-standing relationship
D) Automatically reject all offshore structures

Answer: B

Explanation

A) Accepting the offshore structures as normal asset management is risky. While wealthy clients may legitimately use offshore entities for investment or estate planning, the lack of transparency about beneficial ownership and source of funds creates a significant money laundering risk. Criminals often exploit complex ownership arrangements to obscure illicit proceeds. Accepting these arrangements without verification exposes the bank to regulatory violations and reputational harm.

B) Conducting enhanced due diligence is the correct response. This involves identifying all beneficial owners, understanding the purpose of each entity, verifying the source of funds, assessing the jurisdictions involved for regulatory compliance, and analyzing transactional patterns. Documentation, such as corporate formation papers, financial statements, and contracts, should be reviewed to substantiate the legitimacy of the entities. Screening for PEPs, sanctions, and negative media is essential. If the client fails to provide satisfactory information, escalation to compliance and potential reporting to authorities is required. Enhanced due diligence ensures regulatory compliance while protecting the bank from facilitating illicit activity.

C) Ignoring the structures due to a long-standing client relationship is inappropriate. AML obligations apply regardless of client tenure. Complex, opaque structures must be evaluated, and longevity does not reduce risk.

D) Automatically rejecting offshore structures is overly rigid. Many offshore structures are legitimate. Denying services without investigation could unnecessarily disrupt client operations and create legal complications. Investigation and verification must precede any denial.

The correct approach is enhanced due diligence on all entities and beneficial owners, making B correct.

Question 193

A client makes frequent donations to a newly established charity in a high-risk country but provides no supporting documentation. Which regulatory concern is most relevant?

A) Potential terrorist financing
B) Routine charitable contributions
C) Tax compliance
D) Standard consumer banking behavior

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Potential terrorist financing is the primary concern. Terrorist organizations often exploit charitable donations to move funds for illicit purposes, particularly through newly established or informal charities in high-risk regions. Even small, repeated donations can be structured to avoid detection, making the behavior a red flag. Banks are required to conduct enhanced due diligence, including verifying the legitimacy of the charity, reviewing governance documents, identifying beneficiaries, and screening for PEPs and sanctioned individuals. Monitoring patterns of donations, particularly cross-border transfers, is critical. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of a suspicious activity report is necessary if the donations cannot be adequately explained. Failing to identify such activity exposes the bank to regulatory penalties, reputational risk, and the potential for facilitating terrorism financing.

B) Routine charitable contributions are low-risk and typically documented. Without risk factors such as new entities or high-risk locations, such donations do not raise regulatory concern. The presence of high-risk factors in this scenario differentiates it from routine behavior.

C) Tax compliance, while relevant, is secondary. The main regulatory risk is the potential misuse of funds for terrorism financing, not tax reporting.

D) Standard consumer banking behavior does not include repeated, undocumented donations to high-risk regions. This behavior is exceptional and requires investigation.

Enhanced due diligence, monitoring, and escalation for potential terrorist financing represent the appropriate regulatory response, making A correct.

Question 194

A client deposits multiple cash amounts just below the reporting threshold over several days and wires the aggregated total to multiple offshore accounts. Which activity is most indicative of money laundering?

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements
B) Routine savings deposits
C) Personal utility bill payments
D) Domestic payroll deposits

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements is a classic indicator of money laundering. This practice, known as smurfing, involves breaking large sums into smaller amounts to evade detection. When combined with wire transfers to multiple offshore accounts, this behavior suggests layering—a process where funds are moved through multiple accounts or jurisdictions to conceal their origin. Banks are required to monitor transaction patterns, trace sources of funds, request supporting documentation, and escalate suspicious activity to compliance. Filing a suspicious activity report may be necessary if documentation is insufficient. Ignoring such activity could expose the bank to regulatory sanctions, reputational harm, and involvement in illicit activity.

B) Routine savings deposits are predictable and traceable, sourced from verified income. They lack the characteristics of structuring, cross-border transfers, or layering, and therefore are low-risk.

C) Personal utility bill payments are ordinary transactions and do not involve structuring, layering, or cross-border activity. They do not indicate money laundering.

D) Domestic payroll deposits are traceable, routine, and generally low-risk. While unusual spikes may warrant monitoring, these transactions do not indicate structured laundering behavior.

The activity most indicative of money laundering is deliberate structuring of deposits to evade reporting thresholds, making A correct.

Question 195

Which scenario most strongly suggests trade-based money laundering?

A) An importer consistently over-invoices goods to transfer excess funds abroad
B) A client pays routine utility bills
C) A customer deposits payroll into a personal account
D) A small business purchases office supplies locally

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Over-invoicing goods is a primary indicator of trade-based money laundering. Criminals inflate invoice values to move excess funds across borders under the guise of legitimate trade. This technique allows illicit funds to be integrated into the financial system while concealing the origin. Trade-based money laundering often involves multiple jurisdictions, shell companies, and complex ownership structures. Banks must analyze trade documents, including invoices, bills of lading, and customs declarations, to identify discrepancies between declared and actual values. Enhanced due diligence, transaction monitoring, escalation to compliance, and filing suspicious activity reports may be required. This activity facilitates the integration and movement of illicit funds without immediate detection.

B) Paying routine utility bills is low-risk and ordinary consumer behavior. It does not involve cross-border trade, structuring, or concealment of illicit funds.

C) Depositing payroll is standard banking activity. While banks monitor for anomalies, payroll deposits do not constitute trade-based laundering.

D) Purchasing office supplies locally is routine business activity and does not involve international transactions, invoice manipulation, or layering. It is unrelated to trade-based money laundering.

The activity most suggestive of trade-based laundering is deliberate over-invoicing of goods to transfer funds across borders, making A correct.

Question 196

A client deposits large cash amounts in several accounts, all just below the regulatory reporting threshold, and immediately wires the aggregated total to multiple offshore accounts. Which activity represents the highest money laundering risk?

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements
B) Routine personal savings deposits
C) Paying regular utility bills
D) Domestic payroll deposits

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements, also known as smurfing, is a classic and high-risk money laundering activity. Criminals deliberately split large cash amounts into smaller transactions below the reporting threshold to avoid detection by financial institutions and regulatory authorities. When such deposits are followed by wire transfers to offshore accounts, it indicates layering—a core stage of money laundering designed to obscure the source and ownership of illicit funds. The bank is required to monitor account activity, identify patterns of suspicious transactions, and conduct enhanced due diligence to verify the source of funds and the legitimacy of the transfers. This involves reviewing historical transaction data, tracing the destination accounts, requesting supporting documentation, and assessing whether the transfers align with the client’s financial profile. If documentation is insufficient or inconsistent, the bank must escalate the matter to compliance and consider filing a suspicious activity report. Ignoring such behavior exposes the bank to regulatory sanctions, legal liability, and reputational damage.

B) Routine personal savings deposits are low-risk and traceable, usually derived from verified income sources. While banks monitor for anomalies, these deposits typically lack characteristics such as cross-border transfers or structuring. Consequently, they do not present a comparable risk to illicit fund layering.

C) Paying regular utility bills is an ordinary banking activity. It is predictable, verifiable, and low-risk. Utility payments do not involve layering, structuring, or cross-border fund transfers, making them irrelevant to money laundering concerns in this scenario.

D) Domestic payroll deposits are routine, traceable, and generally low-risk. While unexpected spikes may warrant monitoring, payroll activity does not typically involve structuring or concealment of funds through multiple accounts.

The activity most indicative of money laundering is deliberate structuring of deposits to avoid regulatory detection, making A correct.

Question 197

A high-net-worth client establishes multiple offshore entities with complex ownership arrangements and provides minimal documentation about the source of funds. What is the most appropriate response?

A) Accept the arrangements as typical for asset management
B) Conduct enhanced due diligence and verify beneficial ownership and source of funds
C) Ignore the complexity due to the client’s long-standing relationship
D) Automatically reject all offshore structures

Answer: B

Explanation

A) Accepting the arrangements as typical for asset management is risky. While wealthy clients often use offshore entities for legitimate investment or estate planning purposes, minimal documentation and opaque ownership structures increase the risk of money laundering. Criminals exploit such arrangements to conceal the origin of illicit funds. Accepting these structures without verification exposes the bank to regulatory noncompliance and reputational damage.

B) Conducting enhanced due diligence is the correct course of action. This involves identifying all beneficial owners, understanding the purpose of each entity, verifying the source of funds, and assessing the regulatory environment of the jurisdictions involved. Documentation such as corporate formation papers, contracts, and financial statements must be reviewed. Screening for PEPs, sanctioned individuals, and negative media is essential. Transactional activity should be analyzed for alignment with the client’s profile. If the client fails to provide adequate documentation, the bank must escalate to compliance and consider reporting the activity to regulators. This approach balances client service with regulatory compliance and risk mitigation.

C) Ignoring complex structures due to a long-standing relationship is inappropriate. AML obligations apply regardless of client tenure. Opaque, high-risk structures must always be verified.

D) Automatically rejecting offshore structures is excessively rigid. Many offshore structures are legitimate, and outright rejection could disrupt client relationships unnecessarily. Investigation and documentation must precede any decision to deny services.

Enhanced due diligence, verification, and compliance escalation ensure both regulatory adherence and risk management, making B correct.

Question 198

A client frequently donates to a newly established charity in a high-risk country without documentation. Which regulatory concern is most relevant?

A) Potential terrorist financing
B) Routine charitable contributions
C) Tax compliance
D) Standard banking behavior

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Potential terrorist financing is the primary concern. Terrorist organizations often exploit charitable donations to move funds for illicit purposes, especially through newly formed or informal charities in high-risk regions. Even small, recurring donations can be structured to avoid detection. Banks are expected to conduct enhanced due diligence, including verifying the charity’s legitimacy, reviewing governance documents, identifying beneficiaries, and screening for PEPs and sanctioned individuals. Monitoring transaction patterns is crucial to identify anomalies. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of a suspicious activity report is required if the donations cannot be adequately substantiated. Failure to investigate such activity exposes the bank to regulatory penalties, reputational harm, and potential facilitation of terrorism financing.

B) Routine charitable contributions are generally low-risk and documented. Donations to high-risk regions without verification are exceptional and trigger heightened scrutiny, unlike standard charitable activity.

C) Tax compliance is secondary. While tax implications exist, the immediate regulatory risk is potential misuse of funds for terrorist purposes rather than reporting or taxation.

D) Standard banking behavior does not include repeated, undocumented donations to high-risk regions. This behavior is unusual and requires investigation.

Enhanced due diligence and monitoring for potential terrorist financing are the correct actions, making A correct.

Question 199

Which scenario most strongly suggests trade-based money laundering?

A) An importer consistently over-invoices goods to transfer excess funds abroad
B) A client pays routine utility bills
C) A customer deposits payroll into a personal account
D) A small business purchases office supplies locally

Answer: A

Explanation

A) Over-invoicing goods is a hallmark of trade-based money laundering. Criminals inflate invoice values to transfer excess funds across borders under the guise of legitimate trade transactions. Trade-based money laundering often involves shell companies, complex ownership structures, and multiple jurisdictions to obscure the origin of funds. Banks and financial institutions are expected to examine trade documents—including invoices, bills of lading, and customs declarations—to detect discrepancies between declared and actual values. Enhanced due diligence includes verifying the legitimacy of trade, assessing the parties involved, and analyzing transactional patterns. Escalation to compliance and potential filing of suspicious activity reports are required if irregularities persist. This method allows criminals to integrate illicit funds into the legitimate economy with minimal scrutiny.

B) Paying routine utility bills is ordinary consumer behavior and does not involve cross-border transactions, invoice manipulation, or layering of funds, making it low-risk.

C) Depositing payroll is standard banking activity. While banks monitor for anomalies, payroll deposits are generally low-risk and do not constitute trade-based laundering.

D) Purchasing office supplies locally is routine business activity. It does not involve cross-border transactions, structuring, or concealment of illicit funds, making it unrelated to trade-based money laundering.

The activity most indicative of trade-based laundering is deliberate over-invoicing to transfer funds abroad, making A correct.

Question 200

A client deposits multiple small cash amounts under the reporting threshold over several days and then wires the aggregated funds to multiple high-risk jurisdictions. What is the primary concern for the bank?

A) Structuring and layering of illicit funds
B) Routine domestic savings deposits
C) Standard bill payments
D) Payroll deposits

Answer: A

Explanation

A) The primary concern is structuring and layering of illicit funds. Structuring, also known as “smurfing,” is a deliberate method used by money launderers to avoid triggering mandatory reporting requirements. Large sums of money derived from illicit activities such as drug trafficking, fraud, corruption, or tax evasion cannot be deposited in a single transaction without raising red flags. To circumvent detection, criminals split these sums into smaller deposits below the reporting threshold. While a single small deposit may seem innocuous, a series of multiple deposits made over days or weeks, particularly when followed by rapid transfers to foreign accounts, is highly suspicious. This practice represents the first stage of layering in the money laundering process, where the purpose is to obscure the origin of funds by introducing complexity and multiple transactions. The objective is to make it difficult for regulatory authorities and banks to trace the source and ownership of the funds.

Layering is critical to money laundering because it separates illicit funds from their original source. In the scenario presented, the client deposits small cash amounts and then wires the combined total to multiple high-risk jurisdictions. These high-risk jurisdictions may include countries with weak AML regulations, secrecy laws, or a history of financial crime. By sending funds abroad, the client is attempting to further distance the money from its origin, complicating the paper trail. Banks are required to identify, monitor, and investigate such patterns, as they are indicators of high-risk behavior. The presence of multiple accounts and cross-border transactions, combined with deposits designed to avoid reporting thresholds, is a classic pattern regulators have highlighted as highly indicative of money laundering.

When monitoring such activities, banks should analyze transaction patterns over time. This includes evaluating deposit frequency, amounts, destinations, and timing. For example, deposits made just below the reporting threshold, in amounts that are intentionally structured, are highly suspicious. Additionally, the rapid consolidation of these deposits and subsequent transfers to high-risk accounts demonstrates a sophisticated layering strategy. These actions should trigger enhanced due diligence, which involves verifying the source of funds, examining the client’s financial history, and assessing whether the transactions are consistent with their known business or personal profile. If inconsistencies or gaps are identified, the bank must escalate the matter to compliance for further investigation and, if warranted, file a suspicious activity report (SAR) with the appropriate regulatory authority. Failing to act on these red flags not only violates regulatory obligations but also exposes the institution to legal liability and reputational damage.

B) Routine domestic savings deposits are generally low-risk and traceable. These are typically made from verified income sources such as wages, business profits, or previously declared funds. Unlike structuring activity, routine savings deposits do not involve deliberately splitting amounts to avoid reporting thresholds or moving funds through multiple accounts or jurisdictions to obscure ownership. Monitoring of ordinary savings deposits is still required under risk-based AML programs, but such deposits rarely present the same level of concern unless unusual patterns emerge that deviate from the client’s historical behavior. Routine deposits lack the characteristics of layering or international transfers designed to conceal illicit origins, making them considerably less concerning in comparison to structured deposits targeting high-risk jurisdictions.

C) Standard bill payments are ordinary consumer or business banking operations, such as paying utilities, rent, or loan installments. These transactions are predictable, easily verifiable, and do not involve deliberate structuring or cross-border fund transfers. Paying bills does not constitute layering or smurfing, and therefore is not indicative of money laundering in this context. While banks monitor all transactions for unusual behavior, the standard nature of bill payments places them in a low-risk category. Even if multiple small amounts are involved, the routine nature of the transactions and the absence of cross-border activity distinguish them from structuring activity.

D) Payroll deposits are routine, traceable, and generally low-risk. Employers deposit wages to employee accounts in predictable amounts and on regular intervals. Although payroll transactions should be monitored for anomalies, spikes, or unusual patterns, they do not constitute structuring or layering unless used intentionally to disguise illicit funds. The scenario presented does not describe typical payroll behavior, as it involves deliberate splitting of cash and movement to high-risk foreign jurisdictions. Payroll deposits alone would not trigger the same level of concern as structured deposits combined with cross-border transfers designed to obscure the source of funds.

In the activity most indicative of money laundering in this scenario is the deliberate structuring and layering of funds through multiple accounts followed by transfers to high-risk jurisdictions. This behavior represents a sophisticated attempt to conceal the origin of illicit funds and is a key red flag identified in regulatory guidance. The bank’s obligations include monitoring, documenting, investigating, and escalating such transactions to compliance, and potentially filing a SAR if the activity remains unexplained. Failure to act on such clear indicators of money laundering exposes the financial institution to regulatory, legal, and reputational risk. Therefore, A is the correct answer.