Free Acams CKYCA Actual Exam Questions

Not B, because this isn’t an emergency situation without confirmed info. The analyst should escalate to compliance (C) to handle the next steps professionally and according to protocol.

C, since the analyst needs compliance input without official legal documents.

Maybe A, as it keeps monitoring without rushing to report yet.

A. Makes sense to keep an eye on it if the high turnover keeps up. Jumping to a report now feels premature without more data or explanations.

I’m thinking A could be it too since a politically exposed person, even a junior one, can raise red flags and increase risk independently from business changes. So my pick is A.

D, new markets bring unknown risks and regulatory challenges.

Isn't relying only on news risky without client confirmation? A seems safer.

Maybe A makes more sense since relying solely on the public registry could delay important updates. Getting legal docs directly from the client offers a more immediate and reliable confirmation of ownership changes.

Maybe D could also fit here since identifying the purpose and nature of the business relationship is about understanding the customer better, which is a key part of enhanced due diligence. While C focuses on wealth source, D helps clarify why they’re engaging with your business, which is crucial for high-risk cases too. The others (A and B) sound more like ongoing verification or threshold monitoring, not really deep dives. So D seems like a reasonable example of EDD as it goes beyond basic info gathering.

Option C makes the most sense since EDD involves digging deeper on high-risk customers, like checking where their wealth comes from. The other choices (A, B, D) are more basic KYC or ongoing monitoring steps, not really enhanced due diligence. So if the question is about EDD specifically, C fits best.

Guessing D here too, since the sale contract is solid proof of the transaction. Visiting the property (B) seems unnecessary and no evidence (C) feels too risky without docs.

D. The sale contract directly proves the property was sold, which is key for verifying the source of wealth. A bank reference (A) doesn’t confirm the inheritance or sale itself, just the customer's banking history. Visiting the property (B) seems excessive and unnecessary at this stage. Saying no further evidence is required (C) isn’t safe because you need concrete proof beyond just a claim. So getting the sale contract first makes the most sense before anything else.

C vs A, C seems odd but A is textbook suspicious behavior.

A – classic sign of structuring to avoid reporting requirements.

It’s B because initial CDD needs a good customer overview and red flags to assess risk early on, which A and D don’t really cover properly.

C, because related accounts and industry info are key for understanding customer context.

Good point on the authority issue. Plus, jumping to freeze the account (C) might cause legal issues if done without approval. So, starting with A to escalate makes the most sense here.

Yeah, the first move should be notifying the MLRO to handle it properly, so A.

D The FATF guidance says if no one owns over 25%, you look for people who exercise control or are senior management. So even if it’s not clear, D fits better than just naming all shareholders.

Option D makes sense because when no one owns over 25%, FATF says to identify those who actually control or manage the entity, not just shareholders. So senior management or controllers matter here.

B imo, gotta get the compliance team to dig in before any formal reports.

B imo, gotta flag internally first before any big decisions or reports.

Maybe B. The AML Directives usually set minimum retention times, so the bank should stick to those and its policies rather than just keeping data while the account’s open like in D.

It’s D for me. The bank needs to keep all record changes while the account is open to track any suspicious activity over time, not just the latest info. That helps with proper AML checks.

Maybe C, since opening accounts without proper ID risks compliance and needs urgent action.

It’s B, because institutions usually get a grace period to fix ID issues.

A. The main thing is avoiding tipping off the customer, which could compromise the whole process. Secure lines are good but not the priority in this context.

Maybe A makes the most sense here. The big risk with contacting a customer during EDD is accidentally tipping them off that something’s being checked, which could mess up the investigation. D sounds practical but feels more like a general security measure rather than a key EDD factor. Plus, whether it’s secure phone line or not, the priority is to keep the customer unaware to avoid alerting them to any suspicion. So keeping discussions discreet and not revealing the real reason for contact is probably the main thing to watch out for.

A imo, the question mentions "in addition to normal CDD," so ongoing monitoring each quarter fits as an extra step. Senior management approval is important but usually comes right at onboarding.

Option B makes the most sense here because the question zeroes in on the account opening stage. You need that senior management approval before you even start the relationship due to the higher risk a PEP presents. Enhanced monitoring (option A) is important but usually kicks in after the account is active. Contacting law enforcement (C) or filing a suspicious transaction report (D) isn’t standard just because someone is a PEP—they’re riskier but not automatically suspicious. So, for this step, locking down management approval upfront is key.