How should the investigator proceed in this situation"?

An analyst reviews an alert for high volume Automated Clearing House (ACH) activity in an account. The analyst’s initial research finds the account is for a commercial daycare account that receives high volumes of large government-funded ACH transactions to support the programs. The account activity consists of checks (cheques) made payable to individual names in varying dollar amounts. One check indicates rent to another business.

An Internet search finds that the daycare company owner has previous government-issued violations for safety and classroom size needs, such as not having enough chairs and tables per enrollee. These violations were issued to a different daycare name.

Simultaneous to this investigation, another analyst sends an email about negative news articles referencing local child/adult daycare companies misusing governmental grants. This prompts the financial institution (Fl) to search all businesses for names containing daycare’ or ‘care1. Text searches return a number of facilities as customers at the Fl and detects that three of these businesses have a similar transaction flow of high volume government ACH funding with little to no daycare expenses. During the investigation, it was determined that some of the checks were issued to a mother-in-law of a PEP and deposited into her account with the Fl. This customer was not found on the Fl’s PEP list.

How should the investigator proceed in this situation"? (Select Two.)
A . Conduct the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP.
B . Reter the newly identified customers account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP.
C . Use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process.
D . Send a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date.
E . File a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP.

View Answer

Answer: A, D

Explanation:

The investigator should proceed in this situation by conducting the investigation as usual, since the activity in question is not directly connected to the PEP (A) and sending a referral to Sanctions/List Screening, or similar department/responsible individual, to ensure that the customer due diligence information is up to date (D). These actions are appropriate and prudent, as they allow the investigator to continue their analysis of the suspicious activity without being biased by the potential PEP status of the customer’s relative, and they ensure that the FI has accurate and current information about its customers and their associates. According to the ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide1, “the FI should conduct enhanced due diligence on all parties involved in the investigation, including checking various sources of information, such as watch lists, sanctions lists, negative news, and official registries” (p. 24). The FI should also “update the customer profile with any new information obtained during the investigation” (p. 25).

The other options are not correct. The investigator should not refer the newly identified customer’s account for closure due to the high risk associated with the potential PEP (B), as this could be premature or disproportionate, as well as potentially discriminatory or illegal. The investigator should not file a SAR/STR due to the potential involvement of a PEP (E), as this could also be premature or unnecessary, as well as potentially misleading or inaccurate. The investigator should not use this case as an example to train employees to recognize potential PEPs during their investigation process ©, as this could violate confidentiality or data protection laws, as well as compromise the investigation or alert the customer or their relative of the suspicion.

Reference: 1: ACAMS Advanced Financial Crimes Investigations Certification Study Guide, available at ACAMS