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 Exam - Topic 2 Question 79 Discussion

A compliance officer of a financial institution is reviewing a payment for sanctions compliance between two parties in Europe and Asia. The payment is in Euros and involves the provision of services to a company located in a jurisdiction subject to Office of Foreign Assets Control secondary sanctions. Which factor is most important in determining the compliance officer's response?
B) A one-off commercial transaction conducted between parties in Europe and Asia is not subject to secondary sanctions.
A) Asset freezes only prohibit US companies from engaging in certain activities with counterparts from a sanctioned jurisdiction.
C) The threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist despite the absence of a US nexus.
D) Secondary sanctions only target specific sectors of the economy such as the banking and finance sectors.

Acams CAMS Exam - Topic 2 Question 79 Discussion

Actual exam question for Acams's CAMS exam
Question #: 79
Topic #: 2
[All CAMS Questions]

A compliance officer of a financial institution is reviewing a payment for sanctions compliance between two parties in Europe and Asia. The payment is in Euros and involves the provision of services to a company located in a jurisdiction subject to Office of Foreign Assets Control secondary sanctions. Which factor is most important in determining the compliance officer's response?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Isaac at Jul 11, 2024, 02:55 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Providencia
8 months ago
C makes the most sense, even without a US link.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sylvia
8 months ago
A is misleading; it’s more complicated than that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorita
8 months ago
Wait, are we really saying secondary sanctions don't apply?
upvoted 0 times
...
Alona
9 months ago
I disagree, B seems more relevant for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherron
9 months ago
C is definitely the key factor here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
9 months ago
I feel like the focus should be on the potential threat of US sanctions, but I’m not confident about how that plays out in this context.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jackie
9 months ago
If I remember correctly, the key factor is whether the transaction could still expose the institution to US sanctions, even if it's just a one-off deal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurene
10 months ago
I think I came across a practice question that mentioned how secondary sanctions can affect foreign entities, but I can't recall the specifics.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florencia
10 months ago
I remember studying that secondary sanctions can still apply even without a direct US connection, but I'm not entirely sure how that impacts this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bok
10 months ago
Based on what I know about sanctions compliance, I would say Option C is the correct answer. The threat of US sanctions can extend beyond just US companies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amie
10 months ago
I'm not totally sure about this, but I think the compliance officer needs to carefully evaluate the risk of potential secondary sanctions, regardless of the parties' locations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thersa
10 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the details here. Does the fact that the payment is in Euros and the parties are in Europe and Asia mean it's not subject to US sanctions?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kasandra
10 months ago
This question seems tricky, but I think the key is understanding the concept of secondary sanctions and how they can apply even without a US nexus.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leslie
10 months ago
Option C seems like the most important factor to consider. Secondary sanctions can still apply even if there's no direct US involvement in the transaction.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
10 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The key is to identify which of the options would be considered a discretionary cost that the health plan has control over, rather than a committed cost.
upvoted 0 times
...
Penney
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm a little confused on the difference between corrective and preventive measures. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catrice
1 year ago
I'm going with C. Better safe than sorry when it comes to sanctions, even if the parties are in Europe and Asia.
upvoted 0 times
France
1 year ago
D: Yeah, it's better to be safe than sorry when dealing with potential sanctions violations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denna
1 year ago
C: It's always important to err on the side of caution when it comes to sanctions, so I would go with that too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xochitl
1 year ago
B: I agree, the location of the company can have a big impact on sanctions compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nelida
1 year ago
A: I think the most important factor is the jurisdiction of the company receiving the services.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Glenn
1 year ago
Haha, the compliance officer better be on their A-game! This question is no joke - secondary sanctions can be a real minefield.
upvoted 0 times
Queen
1 year ago
C) The threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities continues to exist despite the absence of a US nexus.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alex
1 year ago
B) A one-off commercial transaction conducted between parties in Europe and Asia is not subject to secondary sanctions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherron
1 year ago
A) Asset freezes only prohibit US companies from engaging in certain activities with counterparts from a sanctioned jurisdiction.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Veronica
1 year ago
Option B is tempting, but I'm not sure a one-off transaction is enough to avoid secondary sanctions, especially given the jurisdiction involved.
upvoted 0 times
Wendell
1 year ago
C: I agree. We should be cautious and consider all factors before making a decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shasta
1 year ago
B: That's a good point. The jurisdiction involved could make a difference in how we approach this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reena
1 year ago
A: I think we need to consider the threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities, even without a US nexus.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chana
1 year ago
I think option C is the correct answer. Secondary sanctions can still apply even without a direct US nexus, so the compliance officer needs to be cautious.
upvoted 0 times
Reta
1 year ago
User 4: The compliance officer must carefully assess the situation before making a decision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denise
1 year ago
User 3: It's important to be aware of the potential risks involved.
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
1 year ago
User 2: Definitely, the threat of US sanctions is a major factor to consider.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maurine
1 year ago
User 1: I agree, option C is crucial in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Skye
1 year ago
I agree with Karina, C is crucial because the absence of a US nexus doesn't mean the threat isn't there.
upvoted 0 times
...
Van
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe it's D, secondary sanctions only target specific sectors of the economy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karina
1 year ago
I think the most important factor is C, the threat of US sanctions against foreign individuals and entities.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel