An analyst reviews an alert for high volume Automated Clearing House (ACH) activity in an account. The analyst's initial research finds the account is for a commercial daycare account that receives high volumes of large government-funded ACH transactions to support the programs. The account activity consists of checks (cheques) made payable to individual names in varying dollar amounts. One check indicates rent to another business.
An Internet search finds that the daycare company owner has previous government-issued violations for safety and classroom size needs, such as not having enough chairs and tables per enrollee. These violations were issued to a different daycare name.
Simultaneous to this investigation, another analyst sends an email about negative news articles referencing local child/adult daycare companies misusing governmental grants. This prompts the financial institution (Fl) to search all businesses for names containing daycare' or care*. Text searches return a number of facilities as customers at the Fl and detects that three of these businesses have a similar transaction flow of high volume government ACH funding with little to no daycare expenses.
The analyst determines that site visits should be conducted for the three daycare businesses. Which observations at the on-site visits would justify writing a SAR/STR? (Select Three.)
The observations at the on-site visits that would justify writing a SAR/STR are signs of severe wear and poor maintenance at the site (A), lights turned off at the site during operational hours , and a full parking lot of cars with no staff at the site (F). These observations suggest that the daycare businesses are not operating legitimately or providing adequate services to their customers, and that they may be misusing governmental grants or laundering money through their accounts. These observations are consistent with some of the red flags for fraud identified by ACAMS2, such as:
Inadequate facilities or equipment for the type of business
Lack of visible activity or customers at the business location
Discrepancy between reported income and expenses
Unusual volume or frequency of transactions
The other observations are not as relevant or indicative of fraud as options A, C, and F. A site located in a commercial building (B) could be a normal or legitimate choice for a daycare business, depending on its size, location, and availability. Visible attendance with children being dropped off by parents (D) could show that the daycare business is providing genuine services to its customers, although it does not rule out possible fraud or money laundering. Visible signage indicating the purpose of building (E) could also show that the daycare business is transparent and legitimate, although it does not guarantee its quality or compliance.
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 the 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 real estate business which again poses a higher risk.
While reviewing the account activity, it is noted that several transfers are sent to a company located in an offshore jurisdiction. Which step should the investigator take next?
The best step for the investigator to take next is to request information about the beneficiaries related to the company. This will help to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of the funds and the purpose of the transactions. Requesting information from the company or filing a SAR/STR to the FIU where the company is located may not be feasible or effective, as the company may not cooperate or the FIU may not have jurisdiction over the offshore entity. Conducting an open-source search may provide some information about the ownership and registration of the company, but it may not be sufficient or reliable to determine the nature and legitimacy of the transactions.
SAR Narrative Guidance Package
Best Practices for Drafting an STR or SAR
A client that runs a non-profit organization that aids refugees in leaving their home countries received a remittance from a money services business that was ten times the average. The client was recently detained for providing falsified passports to illegal immigrants. Which predicate offenses could be considered in the SAR/STR? (Select Two.)
The correct answer is A and B because human smuggling/trafficking and terrorist financing are both predicate offenses for money laundering that could be related to the client's activities. Option C is incorrect because there is no indication of narcotics trafficking in the scenario. Option D is incorrect because there is no indication of antiques smuggling in the scenario. Option E is incorrect because there is no indication of tax evasion in the scenario.
In a SAR/STR narrative concerning Individual
A product of analysis is a conclusion or inference that is derived from facts or judgments, using analytical techniques or tools. Option B is a product of analysis because it implies that the investigator has used a tool or technique, such as a threshold analysis, to identify a pattern of structured cash deposits that may indicate an attempt to evade reporting requirements. The other options are facts or judgments that can be verified by evidence or observation.
The investigative department of a financial institution (Fl) receives an internal escalation notice from the remittance department for a SWIFT message requesting a refund due to potential fraud. The notice indicates that a total of three international incoming remittances were transferred to a corporate customer from Country A, in the amount of approximately 5 million EUR for each. The first two incoming remittances had been exchanged into currency B and transferred out to Country B a few days ago. The third incoming remittance has been held by the remittance department.
As noted from the KYC profile, the corporate customer is working in the wood industry. with the last account review completed 3 months ago. Since the account's opening. there has been no history of a large amount of funds flowing through the account. The investigator conducts an Internet search and finds that the remitter is a food beverage company.
The same morning, the investigator receives a call from a financial intelligence unit (FIU) inquiring about the same incident. The FIU states that it will issue a warrant to freeze the account on the same day.
After further review, the decision is made that transactions appear suspicious. Which are the next steps the investigator should take? (Select Two.)
The correct answer is C and E. The investigator should provide additional information to the LE upon receiving a formal request, and gather all the information that would be useful for LE and recommend filing a SAR/STR. These steps are consistent with the best practices of conducting financial crime investigations and reporting suspicious activity. The investigator should not close the customer's accounts or the investigation, as this may interfere with the ongoing LE inquiry and violate the FI's policies and procedures. The investigator should also not contact local LE directly, as this may compromise the confidentiality of the investigation and the FIU's authority. Reference:
Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, Chapter 4: Reporting Suspicious Activity, pages 40-411
Advanced CAMS-FCI Study Guide, Chapter 5: Governance of an AFC Investigations Unit, pages 48-491
Advanced CAMS-FCI Certification | ACAMS
Dennis Moore
2 days agoWilliam Roberts
17 days agoSandra Evans
1 month agoEdward Young
2 months agoSharon Lewis
2 months agoHarold Miller
3 months agoMichelle Reed
3 months agoPatricia Flores
3 months agoCarol Young
3 months agoGerald Cook
2 months agoDaniel Moore
2 months agoDonald Moore
3 months agoEttie
4 months agoDalene
4 months agoFausto
4 months agoAdelle
5 months agoAhmed
5 months agoTwila
5 months agoBarrett
5 months agoTawny
6 months agoTamra
6 months agoGlen
6 months agoAaron
6 months agoLang
7 months agoVirgilio
7 months agoEzekiel
7 months agoKattie
7 months agoSherly
8 months agoDeonna
8 months agoRaymon
8 months agoSang
8 months agoAliza
9 months agoPamella
9 months agoRosio
9 months agoVannessa
9 months agoNadine
10 months agoBillye
10 months agoEvangelina
10 months agoEun
10 months agoKris
11 months agoRuthann
11 months agoRasheeda
1 year agoIdella
1 year agoPhillip
1 year agoRobt
1 year agoAlyce
1 year agoKimberlie
1 year agoCristal
2 years agoTomas
2 years agoIesha
2 years agoJessenia
2 years agoRosendo
2 years agoLashawna
2 years agoMaurine
2 years agoNoemi
2 years agoMaurine
2 years agoBette
2 years agoHelene
2 years agoJohanna
2 years ago