Free ACAMS CAMS Actual Exam Questions s - Question 7 Discussion

Maybe C, since the U.S. generally acts when laundering involves its jurisdiction directly.

Isn't D risky too since correspondent accounts can get caught up if funds touch U.S. soil?

C/D? I think D might be too broad since jurisdiction usually matters, but C’s focus on suspicion of laundering in the U.S. seems more precise for seizure risk. A and B sound too limited to me.

C/D? I get why D feels like the bigger risk since correspondent accounts can be linked globally, but C’s point about the laundering needing to be suspected within the U.S. also makes sense since that’s where the account actually is. If the predicate offense happened entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, maybe seizure risk isn’t as strong? So it’s tough, but I think C might be more precise when considering legal reach specifically tied to U.S. territory and laws.

C. It makes sense that seizure risk would apply if the laundering is suspected within the U.S., since that’s where the correspondent account is held. While D points to activity outside the U.S., enforcement typically focuses on where the funds physically pass through. A and B seem off because they limit seizure to only U.S. citizens or banks, which isn't quite right either. So, C covers the direct link between the U.S. correspondent account and predicate offenses occurring on U.S. soil, which is key here.

I’m with D on this one too. The correspondent account can be exposed to seizure if it’s involved in laundering activities, regardless of where the suspicious use happens. A and B seem too limited because the reach of U.S. enforcement can extend beyond just U.S. citizen accounts or U.S. banks’ accounts. C is close but misses that the risk isn’t confined to just money laundering suspected strictly within the U.S. territory. So, D covers the wider risk scenario more realistically.

This one’s tricky, but I’m going with D. The risk of seizure isn’t limited to just U.S. accounts if the funds are linked to money laundering anywhere, especially if the customer uses the account for suspicious activity in other countries. So, a correspondent account can be at risk even if illegal activity happens outside the U.S. The wording in D covers that broader scope better than C.

Doesn't C cover the scenario more precisely? It's about suspicion within U.S. jurisdiction.

D