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 CAMS-FCI Exam - Topic 3 Question 13 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's CAMS-FCI exam
Question #: 13
Topic #: 3
[All CAMS-FCI Questions]

In a SAR/STR narrative concerning Individual

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the use of large amounts of cash is a common method for money launderers to move illicit funds [1]. Purchasing luxury items with cash can indicate an attempt to convert illegal funds into tangible assets that can be easily resold or moved across borders. As a result, businesses that deal with luxury items are required to implement enhanced due diligence measures, including monitoring transactions involving large amounts of cash [1].


by Clay at Mar 19, 2025, 08:54 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Virgina
4 months ago
I’m not sure about B, it feels like a stretch to assume intent.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
5 months ago
Wait, how do we know it was to circumvent regulations?
upvoted 0 times
...
Chery
5 months ago
Totally agree, B is definitely interpretive.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
5 months ago
A and D are just facts, no analysis there.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donette
5 months ago
Statement B seems like an analysis, not just a fact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loreta
5 months ago
I’m confused; I thought all of these were factual. But B does seem to imply something about intent, which could mean it’s the analysis part.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantay
6 months ago
I feel like A is just stating facts about the transactions, so it can't be the answer. B seems to imply a conclusion, which could be analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
Detra
6 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about structured deposits being a red flag. Maybe C is the right choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Solange
6 months ago
I think the answer might be B because it suggests intent, which seems more analytical than just stating facts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kallie
6 months ago
This looks like a tricky one, but I think I've got it. Option A is a factual statement, option C is a judgment, and option D is also a fact. That leaves option B as the product of analysis - the statement about the cash deposits being structured to circumvent reporting requirements. I'm confident that's the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cecily
7 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. The difference between a fact, judgment, and product of analysis isn't totally clear to me. I'll need to re-read the options carefully and try to identify which one seems to be an analytical conclusion rather than a straightforward statement of information. Hmm, I'm leaning towards option B, but I'm not 100% sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
7 months ago
Okay, let's see here. The first option is a factual statement about the number and total value of wires. The second and third options seem to be judgments or inferences about the purpose of the cash deposits. I think the fourth option, about the individual's occupation, is also a fact. So I'm going to go with option B as the product of analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mari
7 months ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the difference between a fact, judgment, and product of analysis. I'll need to carefully read through each option and think about which one represents a product of analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
King
1 year ago
Option A all the way! Stating the specific details about the wires and the amount is definitely a product of analysis rather than a judgment or fact. The other options are just too vague.
upvoted 0 times
Viva
10 months ago
User 4: Option A is definitely the most specific and clear choice in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tien
10 months ago
User 3: Yeah, the other options are too general and open to interpretation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
11 months ago
User 2: I agree, it provides concrete information that can be analyzed further.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenna
11 months ago
User 3: Yeah, the other options seem more like assumptions rather than actual findings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
11 months ago
User 2: I agree, it provides concrete information rather than speculation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vivienne
11 months ago
User 1: Option A all the way! Stating the specific details about the wires and the amount is definitely a product of analysis rather than a judgment or fact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlie
11 months ago
User 1: Option A all the way! Stating the specific details about the wires and the amount is definitely a product of analysis rather than a judgment or fact.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kerry
1 year ago
I'm torn between B and C. They both seem to be indicating structured cash deposits, which could be a sign of potential money laundering. But I guess option A is the one that's more clearly a product of analysis.
upvoted 0 times
Jenise
11 months ago
B) Individual A made structured cash deposits possibly to circumvent regulatory reporting requirements
upvoted 0 times
...
Timothy
12 months ago
A) Individual A was the originator of nine wires totaling 225.000 USD between January and March 2020.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jerlene
1 year ago
But A seems like a fact, not a product of analysis.
upvoted 0 times
...
Twanna
1 year ago
Option D is quite humorous. A college student working part-time at a car wash making structured cash deposits? That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario.
upvoted 0 times
Rebecka
11 months ago
A) Individual A was the originator of nine wires totaling 225.000 USD between January and March 2020.
upvoted 0 times
...
Davida
12 months ago
C) Individual A made structured cash deposits on almost consecutive days.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauran
12 months ago
B) Individual A made structured cash deposits possibly to circumvent regulatory reporting requirements
upvoted 0 times
...
Jenise
1 year ago
A) Individual A was the originator of nine wires totaling 225.000 USD between January and March 2020.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Keneth
1 year ago
I think option A is the correct answer as it presents a product of analysis rather than a fact or judgment. The other options seem to be more focused on making judgments or stating facts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleta
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerlene
1 year ago
I think the answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel