Accountants are classified as designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) under FATF standards and must apply a risk-based approach to AML/CFT compliance.
A customer acceptance policy is a key tool that helps accountants define which clients or engagements fall outside their risk appetite. This supports consistent onboarding decisions and ensures high-risk clients are either subject to enhanced due diligence or declined.
Additionally, due to the nature of accounting services--such as advisory, tax preparation, and financial reporting--traditional automated transaction monitoring systems used by banks are often not appropriate. Instead, accountants rely more heavily on engagement-based risk assessments, client profiling, and professional judgment.
Accountants are subject to record-keeping requirements longer than two years in most jurisdictions, and geographic risk is always relevant when assessing AML/CFT exposure. Risk assessments must be comprehensive and proportionate, not artificially limited.

FATF standards require organizations to adopt a risk-based approach (RBA) that is informed by both internal risk factors and national and sectoral risk assessments. These assessments provide critical insight into prevalent money laundering and terrorist financing threats within specific jurisdictions and industries.
Organizations should integrate relevant findings from these assessments into their internal risk assessments to ensure that policies, controls, and monitoring systems are aligned with identified risks. This enables institutions to tailor enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures and allocate compliance resources effectively.
Ignoring national or sectoral assessments would weaken the organization's ability to respond to known threats and would be inconsistent with regulatory expectations. These assessments are not limited to worst-case scenarios nor intended solely for regulators; they are a foundational input for private-sector AML programs.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a key component of modern AML/CFT frameworks and are strongly encouraged by FATF and national regulators. Their primary benefit lies in enhancing timely and effective information sharing between financial institutions, regulators, law enforcement, and financial intelligence units (FIUs).
Through PPPs, authorities can share typologies, red flags, and emerging threat intelligence, while private institutions contribute operational insights derived from real transaction data. This rapid exchange of information on risks, high-risk activities, and suspicious actors significantly improves the detection and prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.
PPPs do not exist to source staffing resources, provide salaries, or ensure basic understanding of regulatory concepts such as PEPs, which are already addressed through standard AML requirements.
Their true value is the speed, quality, and relevance of shared intelligence, allowing participants to respond more effectively to evolving financial crime threats.

When reviewing business operations of a Money Services Business (MSB), it is critical to identify behaviors that indicate potential money laundering activity. The CAMS Study Guide - 6th Editionoutlines severalred flagscommonly associated with MSBs.
Option A is correct:
A customer beinghesitant to provide beneficiary information, such as the name or address, is a red flag. It may indicate attempts to hide the true purpose or recipient of the funds and could suggeststructuring or layering activity.
Option D is correct:
A customer usingmultiple accounts under different namesto conduct transactions is a strong red flag. This could indicate efforts toobscure ownership, avoid detection, or conductsuspicious structuringbehavior to stay below reporting thresholds.