Free Acams CKYCA Actual Exam Questions - Question 11 Discussion
that trades covered by letters of credit are not consistent with the customer’s usual business. What
should be the next action taken by the KYC analyst?
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.
This definitely looks like something that needs a closer look internally before making big moves. The unusual trade patterns suggest possible suspicious activity, so passing it along to the internal team to investigate is the smart call. That matches option B. You don’t want to jump to conclusions about criminal violations or closing accounts without more info, and looping in the board or filing reports too early could be premature. Better to let the compliance or risk team dig deeper first.
D imo, this looks like unusual activity but not necessarily illegal yet. Closing the account right away seems harsh without a full investigation. Notifying the board or filing reports before internal review also feels premature. Better to get internal experts involved first to dig deeper and confirm if there’s anything really suspicious. If they find something, then escalate further.
This isn’t about jumping straight to filing reports or closing accounts, so options A and D feel too extreme right now. The key is to escalate internally first, so option B fits best. Also, C sounds off because the analyst isn’t supposed to assume criminal violations on their own—that’s for investigators. The analyst’s role is spotting potential red flags and passing them along for further review, which makes B the right move here.
B imo, you gotta get the internal team involved to assess the risk properly before jumping to conclusions like closing accounts or filing reports externally. Let the specialists handle it next.
B, because you need to report internally first before any bigger moves.
Maybe D could be considered if the unusual activity is confirmed as high risk and no satisfactory explanation is given, but that feels like a later step, not immediate. The analyst should probably make sure the suspicious activity is properly documented and reviewed internally first to avoid any hasty decisions. Closing accounts without solid proof or investigation might cause issues, so jumping to D seems too early. The internal referral (B) still makes more sense as the immediate next step to get compliance or risk teams involved before taking any drastic measures.
Makes sense to go with B here. Before escalating or closing the account, it's important to have the suspicious transaction internally reviewed. Jumping straight to C or D feels premature without full info, and involving the Board (A) too soon might be overkill. Better to flag it internally and gather more details first.
B. This is about spotting something off, not confirming crime or taking drastic steps yet. Internal review is the logical next move before involving higher ups or closing accounts.
Option B makes sense; unusual activity needs internal review before any big moves.
Probably B, since unusual activity should be flagged internally before any drastic steps.
It’s B for me too. You need to flag this internally first since the activity is unusual but not proven criminal yet. Jumping to closing accounts or board involvement seems premature.
Maybe B makes the most sense here because unusual trade activity usually needs a suspicious transaction report internally first before jumping to conclusions like closing accounts or board notifications.