Acams Advanced-CAMS-Audit Exam - Topic 4 Question 24 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's Advanced-CAMS-Audit exam

Question #: 24
Topic #: 4

During a sample review, the auditor notices that an alert was generated for a large deposit that was inconsistent with the customer profile. The customer has had no other incidents in the past 10 years and has provided documents to confirm the deposit as a property sale. What should the auditor do?

AIncrease the sample size.

BDocument the conclusion within the audit work papers.

CCarry out further investigation of this alert.

DConsult with the compliance officer.
Rationale for Documenting Conclusions:
Documenting findings ensures transparency and provides an audit trail. This is critical when the incident is consistent with provided evidence and no further investigation is warranted.
Audit Work Paper Standards:
CAMS-Audit recommends that all conclusions be adequately documented, especially when deviations from normal patterns are justified with valid explanations.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Luann at Oct 28, 2025, 11:06 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Clemencia

1 month ago

A seems excessive. The deposit is justified, so no need to increase the sample size.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ilene

1 month ago

D could be useful. Consulting the compliance officer adds another layer of review.

upvoted 0 times

...

Earlean

1 month ago

I agree, but C might be necessary too. Further investigation could clarify.

upvoted 0 times

...

Billye

2 months ago

I think B is the best choice. Documenting is key.

upvoted 0 times

...

Joanna

2 months ago

Consulting with the compliance officer is a smart move, just to be safe.

upvoted 0 times

...

Latricia

2 months ago

Increasing the sample size seems unnecessary here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephen

3 months ago

Wait, a large deposit with no issues for 10 years? That's surprising!

upvoted 0 times

...

Katina

3 months ago

I disagree, further investigation is needed to be sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Franchesca

3 months ago

I think the auditor should definitely document the conclusion.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lenora

3 months ago

B is the way to go. Gotta keep that audit trail squeaky clean!

upvoted 0 times

...

Dulce

3 months ago

Hmm, I'd have to go with C. Wouldn't want to miss anything important, you know?

upvoted 0 times

...

Mitsue

3 months ago

Option B is the clear winner. Gotta love that good old-fashioned paperwork, am I right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Marguerita

4 months ago

I'd go with D and consult the compliance officer. They'd know best how to handle this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yuriko

4 months ago

Wait, is this a trick question? I'm going with C just to be safe. Better safe than sorry, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Helene

4 months ago

Option B seems like the way to go. Gotta document that paper trail, you know?

upvoted 0 times

...

Zana

4 months ago

I think increasing the sample size might not be relevant here since we already have a clear explanation for the deposit. It’s more about how we handle the alert.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gretchen

4 months ago

I’m a bit confused about whether we should consult with the compliance officer first or just document everything. It seems like both could be important.

upvoted 0 times

...

Staci

5 months ago

This situation feels similar to a practice question we did about unusual transactions. I think further investigation might be necessary to ensure everything checks out.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carry

5 months ago

Option D, all the way. Compliance officer's got the inside scoop on this stuff.

upvoted 0 times

...

Simona

5 months ago

I remember we discussed how documenting conclusions is crucial, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the best first step here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Helga

5 months ago

Easy peasy! Since the customer has a clean history and the deposit is supported by documentation, I'd go with option B. No need to increase the sample size or do a full investigation if everything checks out.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vivan

6 months ago

This is a tricky one. On one hand, the documentation checks out, but on the other, the alert was triggered for a reason. I'm leaning towards option D and consulting with the compliance officer just to be on the safe side.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rikki

6 months ago

I think the key here is that the customer has had no other incidents in the past 10 years and provided documents to confirm the deposit. Based on that, I'd say option B is the way to go - document the conclusion and move on.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashton

6 months ago

I'm a bit unsure here. The alert was for a large deposit that didn't match the customer's profile, so I'm wondering if I should do a further investigation, even though the documentation checks out. Option C might be the safer choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Veta

6 months ago

Hmm, this seems pretty straightforward. I'd go with option B and document the conclusion in the audit work papers since the customer has a clean history and provided supporting documents.

upvoted 0 times