Free ACAMS CAMS Actual Exam Questions s - Question 4 Discussion

Probably A makes the most sense because once there’s suspicion of fraud, banks have a regulatory duty to file a suspicious activity report. Waiting to investigate first (like in B) could delay compliance and potentially allow more harm. Plus, an SAR doesn’t mean the employee is guilty, it’s just a report for authorities to look into. Filing a police report (C) or suing (D) feels premature without more proof or internal findings. So, filing the SAR early protects the bank legally and helps keep things above board.

Maybe B is the better first step here. It makes sense for the bank to gather solid evidence before filing an SAR or involving authorities to avoid false accusations. Jumping straight to A without enough info could cause unnecessary trouble for the employee and the bank. Plus, investigations could reveal if it’s really suspicious activity or just a misunderstanding. Filing a police report (C) or civil litigation (D) seems way too premature without the investigation results. So, starting with B looks like the most cautious and practical move to me.

Probably A, since banks often must report suspicious activities once there’s reasonable suspicion.

I agree that jumping straight to filing a police report or civil litigation seems too aggressive without solid evidence. Option B feels right because investigating internally first makes sense to confirm whether fraud is actually happening. You don’t want to damage an employee’s reputation or risk legal trouble by acting prematurely. So, B sounds like the best initial step here.

Option B, because gathering facts helps avoid false accusations before any report.

Makes sense to avoid jumping to police reports without facts, so B.

B. I think the bank should first gather facts and see if there's any real issue before jumping to conclusions or external reports. Filing a suspicious activity report (A) might be premature without enough info, and C or D seem too extreme at this stage. Better to handle it internally first to avoid unnecessary trouble and only escalate if the investigation shows solid grounds.

B/C? Wondering if the question implies the bank should investigate internally before involving law enforcement or just report right away. Does the question specify urgency or evidence level?