Q: 19
The same customer comes into a casino each day and deposits a large amount of cash into an
account but after very little gambling the customer withdraws the funds The casino employees
suspect that the customer may be engaged in money laundering activity Assuming that the anti-
money laundering (AML) regulations that govern the casino’s activities correspond to the Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations the casino:
Options
Discussion
Option C is right here. FATF makes it clear that if staff suspect money laundering, reporting is required, not just optional. D is trying to trick you-cash transaction reports are different from suspicious activity reports.
Probably C, had something like this in a mock and it matched the FATF guidance.
Its C here. If there's suspicion of money laundering, FATF requires filing a suspicious transaction report, not just a cash report. Pretty sure that's the difference between C and D.
Honestly, it comes down to SARs being required if there's suspicion, so that's why I'd say C. FATF standards expect the casino to report suspected money laundering, not just large cash transactions (which would be D, but that's for regular cash thresholds, not suspicious activity). Pretty sure about this interpretation but let me know if you see it different.
C not A. If there's a suspicion of money laundering, reporting is mandatory under FATF guidelines.
Not A, C fits here. FATF rules make SARs mandatory when staff suspect laundering, not just optional. D sounds like a trap since it's about cash reports, but those aren't for suspicion-it's the SAR that's required. Anyone else agree?
Be respectful. No spam.
