Q Law enforcement may be given access to a financial institution customer's financial records if they serve a legal summons or subpoena, or if they have circumstantial evidence to suspect money laundering. These are two of the exceptions to the general rule that financial institutions must protect the privacy of their customers' financial information under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) of 19781. The RFPA alsoallows access to customer records in other situations, such as with the customer's consent, in response to judicial orders, or for certain intelligence or counterintelligence purposes1.
Option A is incorrect because a suspicious transaction report (STR) does not automatically grant law enforcement access to the customer's financial records. The STR is a confidential document that is filed by the financial institution to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the country, and the FIU may decide to share the information with law enforcement if it deems appropriate2. However, law enforcement still needs to follow the RFPA procedures to obtain the customer's records from the financial institution.
Option C is incorrect because the investigation of a customer being made public in the media does not give law enforcement the right to access the customer's financial records. The media exposure may raise the public interest or the urgency of the investigation, but it does not override the RFPA requirements. Law enforcement still needs to obtain a legal summons, subpoena, or other valid authorization to access the customer's records from the financial institution.
References:
1: Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422 2: ACAMS Study Guide for the CAMS Certification Examination, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), p. 47

A domestic business account receiving a wire transfer from an international business with no history of such activity or business needs should be escalated as potentially suspicious activity. This is because this scenario may indicate an attempt to launder money, evade taxes, or finance terrorism through cross-border transfers that have no apparent economic or lawful purpose. The lack of prior relationship or business justification for the wire transfer may also suggest that the transaction is not consistent with the customer's profile or expected activity. Therefore, this scenario should be investigated further and reported if necessary.
9 Financial & Bank Suspicious Activity Examples, Example 2.
CAMS Study Guide 6th Edition, page 40-41.
Reference: https://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/conferences/Conducting%20a%20Money%
20Laundering%20Investigation%20-%20C%20King.pptx

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the Egmont Group is an international network of FIUs that facilitates and prompts the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated predicate offences1. The Egmont Group suggests that one of the core objectives that would lead to an effective national FIU is to have absolute trust amongst national and international stakeholders before sensitive information will be exchanged with confidence2. This means that the FIU should establish and maintain a high level of credibility, professionalism, and integrity in its operations, and ensure that the information it receives and disseminates is protected and used appropriately. The FIU should also comply with the Egmont Group's principlesand standards for information exchange, and foster a culture of mutual trust and cooperation with other FIUs and relevant authorities3.
The other three options are incorrect because:
The FIU must operate from physically separated premises from other law enforcement agencies and government offices is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU.
While the FIU should have operational independence and autonomy, and be free from undue influence or interference, it does not necessarily have to be physically separated from other agencies or offices. The FIU may be located within the judicial, law enforcement, administrative, or hybrid model, depending on the country's legal and institutional framework4.
The FIU meets the Egmont Group assessment criteria is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While meeting the Egmont Group assessment criteria is a requirement for becoming and remaining a member of the Egmont Group, it is not an objective in itself. The assessment criteria are based on the FATF recommendations and the Egmont Group's own documents, and they serve as a benchmark for evaluating the FIU's compliance and effectiveness5.
The FIU must be able to promote the value of the government's commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country is not a core objective that the Egmont Group suggests for an effective national FIU. While the FIU may contribute to the prevention and detection of corruption, as well as the recovery of illicit assets, by analyzing and sharing financial intelligence, it is not the sole or primary responsibility of the FIU to promote the value of the government's commitment to embed a corruption free society within the country. This is a broader and more complex goal that involves multiple actors and factors, such as political will, legal framework, institutional capacity, civil society, media, and international cooperation.
1: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 64 2: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 2 3: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Principles for Information Exchange Between Financial Intelligence Units, June 2013, 3, p. 3-4 4: ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3, p. 67 5: Egmont Group, Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units Support and Compliance Process, June 2013, [6], p. 3-4 : ACAMS, CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4, p. 91-92 Reference: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/books/069/02365-9781589063495-en/ap01.xml

According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) resources, the employee should report the conversation to the compliance officer because the colleague is engaging in tipping off, which is a serious violation of anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Tipping off is the act of informing a person or entity that they are the subject of a suspicious transaction report or an investigation, or providing any information that may compromise or impede the investigation. Tipping off can result in criminal penalties, civil liabilities, and disciplinary actions for the individual and the institution. Therefore, the employee has a duty to report the colleague's misconduct to the compliance officer, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the anti- money laundering policies and procedures, and taking appropriate corrective actions.
CAMS Certification Package - 6th Edition | ACAMS, Chapter 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), page 97 CAMS Certifications: How to Get CAMS Certified | ACAMS, CAMS Examination Preparation, page 8 ACAMS CAMS Certification Video Training Course - Exam-Labs, Module 3: Compliance Standards for Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, video 3.4: Tipping Off and Confidentiality Exam CAMS: Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition), Question 8, Answer B

According to the Wolfsberg Group's Statement on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism1, a compliance officer should include the following three procedures in revising an institution's CTF efforts:
Consulting applicable lists and taking appropriate actions to determine if customers appear on such lists. This procedure is important to prevent terrorist organizations from accessing the financial services of the institution and to comply with the sanctions and regulations imposed by competent authorities. The compliance officer should implement procedures for checking the customers against the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations issued by relevant authorities and taking reasonable and practicable steps to verify the identity and status of the customers.
Reporting matches from lists of known or suspected terrorists to relevant authorities. This procedure is important to assist the authorities in their efforts to detect and disrupt terrorist financing and to fulfill the legal obligations of the institution. The compliance officer should report to the relevant authorities any matches from the lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations consistent with the applicable laws and regulations regarding the disclosure of customer information.
Maintaining customer information to facilitate timely retrieval of such information. This procedure is important to enable the institution to respond promptly and effectively to the enquiries and requests from the authorities and to enhance the quality and accuracy of the customer data. The compliance officer should explore ways of improving the maintenance of customer information to facilitate the timely retrieval of such information.
Wolfsberg Statement on Anti-Terrorism Financing
UNUSUAL CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION CIRCUMSTANCES
* Customer furnishes unusual or suspicious identification documents or declines to produce originals for verification."