Pass the ACAMS AML Certifications CCAS Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Enhanced international cooperation in VA crime investigations is most effective when jurisdictions designate and empower Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that can share intelligence, coordinate cross-border investigations, and liaise with counterparts internationally.

While FATF membership (A) facilitates cooperation, the operational hub for investigations is the FIU. Establishing new agencies (B) or smart contracts for sharing (C) are not established or effective methods.

DFSA guidance and FATF recommendations stress the central role of FIUs in enhancing cooperation and intelligence sharing for AML/CFT, including virtual assets.

When determininghighest-risk customersunder a risk-based approach, firms must consider transaction patterns, jurisdictions, counterparties, and destinations:

B:Large deposits by a student, rapidly converting to crypto and sending to another VASP, suggest potential layering and third-party funding risk.

D:Daily inbound transfers from a foreign VASP to a private (unhosted) wallet indicate consistent high-risk exposure — especially cross-border transactions involving unregulated or weakly regulated jurisdictions.

While VPN use (A) can be a red flag, on its own it is lower risk than significant suspicious fund flows. Paying suppliers in crypto (C) can be legitimate for businesses. A large donation to a charity (E) could be flagged depending on jurisdiction and cause, but is generally less inherently suspicious than B and D unless linked to high-risk entities.

FATF, DFSA, and FSRA AML rules stress that ongoing monitoring should identify thesehigh-frequency, high-value, cross-border crypto flowsas priority for Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) and possible Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs).

Ring signatures, used in Monero, blend a sender’s transaction with others to obscure sender identity, increasing AML risk.

PEPs require enhanced scrutiny under FATF Recommendation 12, including senior management approval and source of funds verification.

Directly sending to a scam cluster is a strong indicator of active participation rather than passive exposure, triggering SAR obligations.

Smart contracts execute predetermined conditions automatically on blockchain, enabling decentralized applications and services.

FATF Recommendation 13 (Correspondent Banking and Similar Relationships) and its application to VASP–VASP relationships require enhanced due diligence before onboarding. This is because such arrangements carry elevated ML/TF risk, especially in cross-border settings.

Required CDD practices include:

Assess the nature and purpose of the VASP relationship (C):Understand why the relationship is being established and the expected services/products.

Obtain approval from senior management (D):Senior management oversight ensures risk is accepted at the appropriate governance level.

Assess the VASP’s supervision and if a license/registration is needed (E):Confirm regulatory oversight, licensing, and compliance with AML/CFT obligations.

Options A and B arenotcore FATF requirements for CDD in this context — local authority approval may be a domestic regulatory requirement in some countries, but not a FATF baseline, and profitability assessment is a business decision, not an AML measure.

To effectively mitigate money laundering risks in the virtual asset sector, countries must ensure that Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) are subject to AML regulations (B), which provide the legal framework for risk-based customer due diligence and reporting suspicious activities. Additionally, VASPs must maintain effective monitoring systems (C) that enable the detection and reporting of suspicious transactions.

While connection to regulated financial institutions (A) and beneficial ownership evaluation (E) are important components of AML frameworks, the foundational requirements per FATF and DFSA guidance focus on regulatory oversight and operational controls.

Jurisdictional regulatory expectations (D) influence enforcement but do not replace the need for direct AML regulatory application on VASPs.

Decentralized exchanges lack a central counterparty responsible for AML compliance, making it difficult to enforce KYC/CDD, monitor transactions, or implement controls. This structural characteristic increases inherent AML risk compared to centralized exchanges, which have accountable operators.

Transaction cost (A), validator nodes (B), or asset types (D) are less impactful in the compliance risk rating.

Fuzzy matches require further review to confirm whether the match is a true hit or a false positive, ensuring compliance accuracy.