TheBoard of Directorsholdsultimate responsibilityforAML/CFT compliance and governance.
* Option B (Correct):TheBoardmustoversee, approve, and ensure AML programs are effective.
* Option A (Incorrect):TheCOO manages operations, butdoes not hold ultimate accountability.
* Option C (Incorrect):While theAML officer executes compliance programs, theBoard provides oversight.
* Option D (Incorrect):TheCEO is responsible for strategy, butAML failures fall under Board accountability.
Reference:Basel Committee's Corporate Governance Principles for Banks, FATF Recommendation 1 (Risk-Based Approach), U.S. OCC AML Compliance Guidelines.

The financial institution should freeze the funds or assets of designated persons and entities once this decision is approved by the Board. This is to comply with the obligation to implement targeted financial sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or other relevant authorities. Freezing means preventing any access, use, transfer, or disposal of the funds or assets by the designated persons and entities or by any other person on their behalf. The financial institution should also report the freezing action to the competent authority and the relevant sanctions committee12.
Option A is not a sufficient step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a tool to facilitate compliance. Adopting automatic screening systems to detect designated persons and entities can help the financial institution to identify potential matches and flag them for further investigation. However, screening systems are not infallible and may generate false positives or false negatives. Therefore, the financial institution should also conduct manual checks and verification of the screening results13.
Option B is not a relevant step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a measure to mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Conducting enhanced due diligence for prohibited entities on the sanctions list may be useful to obtain more information about the nature and purpose of the business relationship, the source and destination of the funds, and the beneficial ownership and control structure of the entity. However, enhanced due diligence does not replace the obligation to freeze the funds or assets of the designated persons and entities14.
Option C is not an appropriate step to comply with sanctions requirements, but rather a violation of the obligation to freeze the funds or assets of the designated persons and entities. Changing the risk profile to
"high-risk" if an existing customer becomes a sanctioned entity and continuing to monitor further transactions may expose the financial institution to legal and reputational risks, as well as potential sanctions evasion or circumvention. The financial institution should terminate the business relationship with the designated person or entity and freeze their funds or assets without delay1 .
References: 1: ACAMS (2020), Study Guide for the Certification Examination, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, pp. 47-49. 2: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams- certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section2.4.1. 3: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-
6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.2. 4: ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section
2.4.3. : ACAMS (2020), CAMS Examination Preparation Video, 6th Edition, ACAMS, Miami, FL, USA, www.acams.org/en/cams-certification-package-6th-edition, Module 2, Section 2.4.4.

According to the CAMS Study Guide, one of the methods to launder money using TCSPs is to create a complex web of transactions involving multiple entities and jurisdictions, often using shell companies and nominees. The payment of consultancy fees to unrelated companies and service providers established in a foreign jurisdiction could be a sign of such a scheme, as it could be used to disguise the origin and destination of illicit funds, or to evade taxes and regulations. Therefore, this transaction indicator warrants further escalation to the compliance officer.: CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2, page 69.

FIUsexchange information through secure platformsto investigate financial crime cases.
* Option B (Correct):TheEgmont Secure Webis theprimary communication platformforFIUs globally.
* Option A (Incorrect):MLATsallow forformal legal cooperationbut arenot an FIU-to-FIU communication tool.
* Option C (Incorrect):INTERPOL databasestrackcriminal records, not financial intelligence data.
* Option D (Incorrect):TheUN Sanctions Listprovidesentity restrictions, not an FIU data-sharing mechanism.
Reference:Egmont Group of FIUs, FATF Recommendation 40 (International Cooperation).

The three statements from the procedure that are in line with Wolfsberg are:
* B. The responsible private banker must establish the identity of a holder of general powers over an account (e.g. a signatory for the account) and, as appropriate, verify that identity. This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.1, which states that the bank will establish the identity of its clients and beneficial owners prior to establishing business relationships with such persons1.
* D. The responsible private banker must obtain the necessary documentation establishing the authorized signer's authority to act on behalf of the account holder or beneficial owner (e.g. a Power of Attorney). This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.3, which states that the bank will obtain the necessary documentation establishing the authority of the authorized signatory to act on behalf of the client or beneficial owner1.
* E. If an individual has signing authority over an account but does not act on a professional basis as a manager of funds, the responsible private banker must understand and document the relationship between that authorized signer, the account holder, and, if different, the beneficial owner of the account. This is consistent with the Wolfsberg Principle 1.2.4, which states that the bank will understand and document the relationship between the authorized signatory, the client and, if different, the beneficial owner of the account1.
:
1: Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Private Banking (2012)