Free Acams CKYCA Actual Exam Questions - Question 7 Discussion

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

A – classic sign of structuring to avoid reporting requirements.

Probably A, structuring deposits is a well-known classic red flag.

C imo, no local contact info or utility bill seems sketchy for opening accounts.

D imo, even if the money has known sources, sending large sums abroad regularly could still raise flags for potential layering or unusual fund flows. It’s less obvious but worth investigating.

I’d say A is definitely a red flag here. Making multiple cash deposits just under the reporting threshold is a classic sign of structuring or “smurfing,” which is often done to avoid triggering mandatory reports. Even if B and C raise questions, this kind of repeated pattern with cash deposits is a stronger indicator for potential money laundering. D seems less suspicious since the funds have known sources and are going to family, so it’s probably less likely to warrant deeper investigation.

It’s B for me. Adding a new beneficial owner after the relationship is established can be a deliberate move to hide true ownership or change the control structure quietly. While A and C are suspicious, A could sometimes be explained by cautious deposit behavior, and C might just be someone new without local ties. But B directly impacts who controls the account and can be an attempt to dodge due diligence or sanctions, so it definitely deserves closer scrutiny from the bank.

It’s C for me. Opening an account without local contact info or proof like a utility bill often means someone’s trying to stay off the grid, which banks should definitely check out.

This one caught my eye because B stands out as a red flag too — adding a new beneficial owner after the account's already set up can signal attempts to obscure who’s really in control. Unlike A, which depends on deposit amounts, B directly points to changes that could hide illicit activity. So I’d pick B here.

Good point on C, but A’s repeated just-below-threshold deposits usually scream structuring — A

A/C? Option C seems suspicious too since no local phone or utility bill could mean trying to hide identity, but A stands out for clear structuring. Both could justify a deeper look.

A, because structuring deposits to avoid reporting is a classic red flag.

Banks often watch for changes in ownership that could mask true control, so B stands out.

Totally agree A is classic structuring, which banks usually flag fast. A

Guessing D could be suspicious too, even if the money is going to family and the source is known. Large transfers abroad can sometimes be used to move illicit funds or avoid detection, so banks might want to look closer just in case. It’s not as clear-cut as A, but still worth flagging for review.

Maybe B is worth considering too. Adding a new beneficial owner after the relationship starts could mean someone is trying to hide the real person behind the account, which might definitely raise some alarms.

Maybe C could be a red flag too since opening an account without local contact info might indicate someone trying to hide their identity or location, which banks usually find suspicious.

I think A makes the most sense here. Making multiple deposits just under the reporting threshold sounds like structuring, which is a common red flag for suspicious activity. The other options seem less obviously suspicious on their own. Anyone else think it’s A?