American Bankers Association CRCM Exam - Topic 9 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for American Bankers Association's CRCM exam

Question #: 23
Topic #: 9

[All CRCM Questions]

First National Bank, a U.S. bank, is contacted by Manufacturing Company, Inc., a U.S. company, to finance its transaction with Country Z, a boycotting country. Payment will be made through a letter of credit in favor of Manufacturing Company at its U.S. address. First National Bank knows that the letter of credit will contain restrictive boycott conditions that would prevent the bank from implementing it. First National Bank suggests to Manufacturing Company, Inc., that it set up a shell corporation in Country Y, a nonboycotting country, and have the shell corporation be the beneficiary of the letter of credit. Does First National Bank have any problem with this transaction?

ANo. The transaction is now not subject to Department of Commerce regulations because the beneficiary is not a U.S. company.

BYes. The transaction is set up to evade the regulation and First National Bank is liable.

CNo. The transaction is set up to evade the regulation, but First National Bank is not liable because Manufacturing Company, Inc., actually effected the transaction.

DNo. First National should have Manufacturing Company, Inc., sign a statement accepting full responsibility for the establishment of the shell corporation.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Chaya at May 06, 2022, 01:15 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Karl

4 months ago

No way this transaction is clean, they’re asking for trouble.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kimberely

5 months ago

I agree, they could be in hot water for this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Phil

5 months ago

Wait, can they really just set up a shell company like that?

upvoted 0 times

...

Chan

5 months ago

Definitely a liability issue here!

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashanti

5 months ago

Sounds like a risky move for the bank.

upvoted 0 times

...

Christiane

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the differences between connection strings and service names. I'll try to recall what I've learned and make an educated guess.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cassandra

5 months ago

This seems like a tricky question. I'm not entirely sure, but I think option C might be the way to go - renaming the new server to match the old one could work to get the Normal Servers to report to it automatically.

upvoted 0 times

...

Beata

5 months ago

I'm a bit confused by this question. The options seem to cover a wide range of cloud and on-premises solutions. I'll need to review my notes on the SDDC to determine which three it specifically helps build. Gotta be careful not to overthink this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Christa

5 months ago

Alright, time to use my process of elimination and see if I can narrow this down.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jettie

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know the POST is an important part of the boot process, but I'm not sure which specific component is responsible for issuing it. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wilda

5 months ago

I'm leaning towards option B. Putting the new server in the same Availability Set as the other components seems like the safest bet to meet the requirements for both availability and speed.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lino

5 months ago

I feel like I saw a question that had flow and project manufacturing listed, but can't quite remember the third one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Harris

5 months ago

I'm pretty confident that the answer is Injection Flaws. That's always been one of the top vulnerabilities according to OWASP.

upvoted 0 times

...