An investigator at a bank triggered a review in relation to potential misuse of legal persons and a complex network of corporate entities owned by customer
The initial focus of the investigation should be to review the customer due diligence documents of each entity and examine the year of incorporation and onboarding channel, as this would help identify the beneficial owners, the source of funds, and the purpose of the business relationship. This would also help determine if the entities are shell companies or have any red flags that indicate potential misuse of legal persons. Using data analytics to extract and analyze the linkages between the different entities would be a subsequent step, not the initial one. Conducting a network link analysis on all customers of the bank would be too broad and time-consuming. Finding out whether customer A has relationships with other financial institutions would be relevant, but not the initial focus. Reference: [Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide], page 44-45; [FATF Guidance on Transparency and Beneficial Ownership], page 12-13.
SAR/STR NARRATIVE
A SAR/STR has been submitted on five transactions conducted on the correspondent banking relationship with ABC Bank.
Client Information:
Remitter information: DEF Oil Resource Ltd. is the oldest member of the DEF Group. It was founded in 1977 as a general trading business with a primary focus on exports from Africa and North Americ
a. The group has business activities that span the entire energy value chain. Their core field of endeavor is centered within the oil and gas industry and its associated sub-sectors.
Beneficiary Information:
As per the response received from ABC Bank, it was determined that the beneficiaries are related to DEF Oil Resource Ltd. These were created by DEF Oil Resource Ltd. to purchase property in a foreign country on behalf of their senior management as part of a bonus scheme. The purpose behind this payment was for purchase of property in another country.
Payment Reference:
ABCXXXXX31PZFG2H
ABCXXXXXX51PQGEH
ABCXXXXXX214QWVG
ABCXXXXXX41PSXA2
ABCXXXXXX815QWS3
Concerns:
* We are unsure about the country of incorporation of the beneficiaries.
* We are concerned about the transactional activity since the payment made towards entities (conducted on behalf of individuals) appears to be possible tax evasion.
* There appears to be an attempt to conceal the identity of individuals (senior management), which again raises concerns about the source of funds.
* Referring to the response received from ABC Bank, we are unclear about the ultimate beneficiary of funds.
* The remitter is involved in a high-risk business, (i.e., oil and crude products trading), and the beneficiary is involved in a real estate business which again poses a higher risk.
The monitoring system of the correspondent institution flags the transaction as suspicious activity. The correspondent bank needs to send a request for information to the respondent bank. Which elements should be included in the request? (Select Three.)
The request for information should include the following elements:
Details of DEF Oil Resource Ltd parent company and the name(s) of the beneficial owner(s) (Option A): This is necessary to verify the identity and ownership structure of the remitter and to assess the risk level of the customer and the transaction.
The account profile of the customer and their KYC data (Option C): This is necessary to understand the nature and purpose of the customer's business relationship with the respondent bank and to compare it with the observed transactional activity.
The contract pertaining to the purchase of property in another country (Option E): This is necessary to verify the legitimacy and source of funds for the transaction and to identify the ultimate beneficiary of funds.
The other options are not relevant or necessary for the request for information. The full transaction history of the correspondent bank's customer (Option B) is too broad and may not be related to suspicious activity. The respondent bank's customer's senior management bonus plan (Option D) is not relevant to the transaction and may not be available to the respondent bank. The last 6 months of transactional history (Option F) is also too broad and may not be related to the suspicious activity.
Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification Handbook, page 19
The intended benefits of section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act include: (Select Three.)
Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act allows financial institutions to share information with each other, under a safe harbor that offers protection from liability, in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist financing activities. The intended benefits of this information sharing include:
Participating financial institutions sharing information about suspicious activity by customers that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, if a customer is conducting transactions with multiple financial institutions that individually do not appear suspicious, but collectively indicate a pattern of money laundering or terrorist financing, the financial institutions can share this information and report it to the authorities.
Detecting money laundering and terrorist financing approaches and schemes across multiple financial institutions. For example, if a financial institution identifies a new typology or modus operandi of money laundering or terrorist financing, it can share this information with other financial institutions to help them prevent or detect similar activities by their customers.
Obtaining additional information on customers or transactions regarding potential money laundering or terrorist financing. For example, if a financial institution has incomplete or insufficient information on a customer or a transaction that raises suspicion, it can request more information from another financial institution that may have dealt with the same customer or transaction.
Section 314(b) | FinCEN.gov
Section 314(b) Fact Sheet - FinCEN.gov
Which scenarios are common to money laundering through online marketplaces and trade-based money laundering? (Select Two.)
Money laundering through online marketplaces and trade-based money laundering both involve the manipulation of the value or quantity of goods to disguise the illicit origin of funds. Over-valuation of the stated price of goods and no evidence of delivery of goods or shipping expenses are two common indicators of such schemes. The other options are not specific to these methods of money laundering.
Which might suggest misuse of crowdfunding resources by a terrorist?
The purchase of airplane tickets after receiving multiple small deposits from a crowdfunding platform might suggest that the funds are being used to facilitate travel for terrorist purposes. The other options are not necessarily indicative of terrorist financing, as they could be explained by legitimate reasons or other types of financial crimes.
Ettie
11 days agoDalene
19 days agoFausto
26 days agoAdelle
1 month agoAhmed
1 month agoTwila
2 months agoBarrett
2 months agoTawny
2 months agoTamra
3 months agoGlen
3 months agoAaron
3 months agoLang
3 months agoVirgilio
4 months agoEzekiel
4 months agoKattie
4 months agoSherly
4 months agoDeonna
5 months agoRaymon
5 months agoSang
5 months agoAliza
5 months agoPamella
6 months agoRosio
6 months agoVannessa
6 months agoNadine
6 months agoBillye
7 months agoEvangelina
7 months agoEun
7 months agoKris
7 months agoRuthann
7 months agoRasheeda
10 months agoIdella
10 months agoPhillip
11 months agoRobt
1 year agoAlyce
1 year agoKimberlie
1 year agoCristal
1 year agoTomas
1 year agoIesha
1 year agoJessenia
1 year agoRosendo
1 year agoLashawna
1 year agoMaurine
1 year agoNoemi
1 year agoMaurine
1 year agoBette
2 years agoHelene
2 years agoJohanna
2 years ago