CAMS · Question #452
A long-term client of an insurance company makes changes to a policy that require payment of an additional lump sum. The amount payable is high, though within the client's means based on the KYC…
The correct answer is B. The payment was made via a company in a jurisdiction known to have lax AML controls. Making payments via a company located in a jurisdiction that is known to have lax anti-money laundering controls is a sign of suspicious activity and should be reported. When making a payment of this nature, the insurance company should be aware of the client's source of funds…
Question
A long-term client of an insurance company makes changes to a policy that require payment of an additional lump sum. The amount payable is high, though within the client's means based on the KYC information collected. The payment is made via a company in another jurisdiction that is known to have lax AML controls. Which indicator of suspicious activity is present?
Options
- AThe payment was made via a company that appears to be owned and controlled by the client
- BThe payment was made via a company in a jurisdiction known to have lax AML controls.
- CA long-term client wants a change to a policy that is already in force.
- DThe additional premium payable appears to be within the client's means based on the KYC
How the community answered
(25 responses)- A12% (3)
- B76% (19)
- C4% (1)
- D8% (2)
Explanation
Making payments via a company located in a jurisdiction that is known to have lax anti-money laundering controls is a sign of suspicious activity and should be reported. When making a payment of this nature, the insurance company should be aware of the client's source of funds and the possible risks associated with the transaction.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.