Free Acams CKYCA Actual Exam Questions - Question 6 Discussion

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.

Probably D. The sale contract shows the transaction happened, which directly proves the source of wealth from selling the property. Other docs might come later, but this is the key step now.

It’s D, since the sale contract directly proves cash from the inherited property.

Option D seems like a solid next step because the sale contract directly ties the inheritance to actual funds coming into the customer’s possession. While a bank reference (A) or property visit (B) might add info, they don’t prove the transaction happened. Saying no further evidence is needed (C) feels risky since verification usually requires documentation of the sale itself to confirm where the money originated. Getting the sale contract gives a concrete legal document confirming the claim, which is pretty essential for solid due diligence.

Maybe A. Getting a bank reference could add an independent layer of verification beyond just documents, especially if the inheritance paperwork isn’t confirmed yet.

Maybe B – seeing the property could directly confirm the inheritance claim.

It’s D for me too, but looking at it differently: the sale contract is a concrete document that confirms the transaction actually happened and shows the value involved. Options A and B don’t really prove the source of wealth directly—bank references won’t show where the money came from, and visiting the property isn’t practical or definitive. Option C feels risky since no further evidence might mean missing potential fraud. So, getting the sale contract is the most straightforward way to verify the claim here.

D. The sale contract directly proves the money came from selling the inherited property, which is the key step to verify the source of wealth here. Visiting the property or bank refs don’t confirm the transaction itself.

C vs D? I get why the sale contract (D) is important, but I’m not convinced we can skip any proof of inheritance. Without some legal docs confirming the inheritance itself, the contract might not fully explain where the money came from. So maybe more than just D is needed, but since that’s not an option, D still feels best here.

I don’t think visiting the property really proves the source of wealth. The sale contract (D) is the solid proof that money came from that sale, so D makes the most sense here.

It’s A. A bank reference letter would help confirm the customer’s financial background independently, which adds another layer beyond just the sale contract for verifying source of wealth.

It’s D, since the sale contract is the most concrete proof of the wealth source.

Option D feels right since the sale contract directly confirms the transaction. A bank reference or property visit wouldn’t really prove the source of wealth as clearly.

Probably D here too, since the sale contract directly proves the transaction happened. A bank reference or visiting property seems less practical or relevant for verifying the source of wealth.

D imo, getting the sale contract makes the most sense to verify the claim. But does the question specify if this is the first time we're dealing with the customer or ongoing? That might affect how thorough we need to be.