Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Acams Exam CAMS-FCI Topic 4 Question 6 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's CAMS-FCI exam
Question #: 6
Topic #: 4
[All CAMS-FCI Questions]

An investigator receives an alert documenting a series of transactions. A limited liability corporation (LLC) wired 59.000,000 USD to an overseas account associated with a state-run oil company. A second account associated with the state-run oil company wired 600,000,000 USD to the LLC. The LLC then wired money to other accounts, a money brokerage firm, and real estate purchases.

The investigator initiated an enhanced KYC investigation on the LLC. The financial institution opened the LLC account a couple of weeks prior to the series of transactions. The names associated with the LLC had changed multiple times since the account opened. A search of those names revealed relations with multiple LLCs. Public records about the LLCs did not show any identifiable business activities.

Open-source research identified mixed reports about the brokerage firm. The firm indicated it purchased mutual funds for its clients and dispensed returns to clients.

Media reports claimed the firm laundered money by holding for a fee before returning it to investors.

The investigator discovers that the bank has no records pertaining to ownership of the LLC. What would this mean for the bank and/or investigator?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

The bank is out of compliance with CIP regulations because it did not obtain the minimum identifying information from the customer prior to opening the account, as required by 31 CFR 1020.220(a)(2)(i)(A). The bank should have obtained the name, date of birth, address, and identification number of the customer, as well as verified the identity of the customer to the extent reasonable and practicable. The lack of ownership data may also indicate a violation of beneficial ownership regulations, but that is not the primary issue in this case.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Darell
25 days ago
This bank needs to hire a team of bloodhounds to sniff out the missing ownership data. Option B is the clear choice, but I'd also suggest they invest in a few extra coffee makers for the compliance team.
upvoted 0 times
Mike
7 days ago
D) The bank cannot respond to law enforcement requests without the ownership data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Quentin
8 days ago
C) The bank is out of compliance with CIP regulations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Farrah
15 days ago
B) The bank is out of compliance with beneficial ownership regulations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tess
18 days ago
A) The bank may not be able to file a SAR/STR without the ownership data.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kayleigh
1 months ago
That could be a problem for the investigator. They need that information to track down the money laundering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Halina
1 months ago
Ah, the old 'I forgot where I put the ownership data' excuse. Classic bank move. Option B is the only option that won't land them in even deeper trouble.
upvoted 0 times
Macy
10 days ago
They better get their act together before things escalate.
upvoted 0 times
...
Clarence
11 days ago
Agreed, option B is the safest bet for the bank.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carlene
14 days ago
Definitely, they need to have their ducks in a row.
upvoted 0 times
...
Remona
19 days ago
Yeah, that excuse won't fly with regulators.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Shantell
2 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I bet the bank wishes they had a magic wand to make this problem disappear. Option B is the way to go, but I'm feeling a bit of a headache coming on just thinking about it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tula
2 months ago
Whoa, this is a messy situation. The bank definitely needs to get their act together and comply with the beneficial ownership rules. Option B is the clear choice.
upvoted 0 times
Lisbeth
12 days ago
It's important for banks to comply with regulations to prevent money laundering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Giuseppe
20 days ago
Option B is the best choice for this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danica
21 days ago
They could be in trouble for not following the rules.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bobbye
1 months ago
The bank should have verified the ownership of the LLC.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mitzie
2 months ago
The bank seems to be in hot water here. Without the ownership data, they're in trouble with the regulations. Option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Hoa
22 days ago
C) The bank is out of compliance with CIP regulations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Owen
1 months ago
The bank needs to get their act together and comply with the regulations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barrett
1 months ago
B) The bank is out of compliance with beneficial ownership regulations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alva
1 months ago
A) The bank may not be able to file a SAR/STR without the ownership data.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tori
2 months ago
I think the bank may not be able to file a SAR/STR without the ownership data.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77