Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Acams Advanced-CAMS-Audit Exam - Topic 2 Question 1 Discussion

Which key risk indicator should the internal auditor consider when reviewing correspondent banking activities?
C) Number of respondent banks located in higher risk jurisdictions.
A) Volume of transaction activity referred by the respondent bank.
B) Size and stature of a respondent bank's operations in its home country.
D) Number of correspondent banking relations terminated. Correspondent banking relationships with banks in high-risk jurisdictions are a key risk indicator, as these relationships often pose greater AML/CFT risks due to regulatory or operational deficiencies in those jurisdictions.

Acams Advanced-CAMS-Audit Exam - Topic 2 Question 1 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's Advanced-CAMS-Audit exam
Question #: 1
Topic #: 2
[All Advanced-CAMS-Audit Questions]

Which key risk indicator should the internal auditor consider when reviewing correspondent banking activities?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Mitsue at Jan 15, 2025, 05:36 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Advanced-CAMS-Audit Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Arminda
8 months ago
I agree with D, but we shouldn't overlook A either!
upvoted 0 times
...
Mel
8 months ago
Wait, are we really saying D is the most critical? Seems a bit narrow.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiera
8 months ago
C makes sense, more banks in risky areas means more exposure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ozell
9 months ago
I think B is also important, size matters in risk assessment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgeanna
9 months ago
Definitely D, those high-risk jurisdictions are a big red flag.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colton
9 months ago
I’m a bit confused about which indicator is most critical; I recall we talked about all these factors, but I can’t pinpoint the key one for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brandee
9 months ago
I practiced a similar question about AML risks, and I feel like the termination of relationships might indicate underlying issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barney
10 months ago
I think the size of the respondent bank's operations could be relevant, but I’m leaning towards the number of banks in high-risk areas.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurel
10 months ago
I remember discussing the importance of monitoring transaction volumes in class, but I’m not sure if that’s the best indicator here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
10 months ago
I feel pretty confident about this one. The correct answer is C - the number of respondent banks located in higher-risk jurisdictions. That's the risk factor that an internal auditor would be most concerned with when reviewing correspondent banking activities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Launa
10 months ago
Ah, I've seen questions like this before. The number of respondent banks in higher-risk jurisdictions is definitely a key risk indicator that the internal auditor should focus on. That's the one that stands out to me as the most relevant.
upvoted 0 times
...
Javier
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. There are a few different risk factors mentioned, and I'm not sure which one would be the most important for an internal auditor to consider. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merilyn
10 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about correspondent banking risks. I think the key is to focus on the risk factors that an internal auditor would consider, like the location and size of the respondent banks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emerson
2 years ago
I believe the volume of transaction activity referred by the respondent bank is also important to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittni
2 years ago
I agree with Ivan, correspondent banking relationships in high-risk jurisdictions can pose greater AML/CFT risks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ivan
2 years ago
I think the internal auditor should consider the number of respondent banks located in higher risk jurisdictions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheron
2 years ago
Haha, I bet the auditor is just hoping none of the respondent banks are located in Mordor or something. But yeah, C is the clear choice here.
upvoted 0 times
Tresa
1 year ago
User 4: Tresa, I agree. It's crucial for the internal auditor to consider all these factors when reviewing correspondent banking activities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
1 year ago
User 3: Gerald, I think you're right. Those high-risk jurisdictions can really increase AML/CFT risks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
2 years ago
User 2: Nan, I agree. C) Number of respondent banks located in higher risk jurisdictions is definitely an important risk indicator.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stevie
2 years ago
User 1: Haha, I bet the auditor is just hoping none of the respondent banks are located in Mordor or something.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Josefa
2 years ago
I agree, C is the way to go. You can't ignore the risks posed by banks in sketchy locations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathryn
2 years ago
C definitely seems like the right answer here. Correspondent banking with banks in higher-risk jurisdictions can be a major red flag for AML/CFT issues.
upvoted 0 times
Ruthann
1 year ago
It's crucial for internal auditors to pay attention to the size and stature of a respondent bank's operations in its home country as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laura
1 year ago
Yes, the number of respondent banks located in higher risk jurisdictions is an important key risk indicator to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danilo
2 years ago
I agree, correspondent banking with banks in high-risk jurisdictions is definitely a red flag for AML/CFT issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel