Forensic Accounting · Topic 8

Money Laundering and Financial Crime Quiz

Work through 25 multiple-choice questions, one at a time. Submit each answer for feedback. At the end, review your score and see which concepts to revisit.

Review the Q&AForensic Accounting quiz path
1. Ownership documents end at a nominee with an undisclosed controlling person. Which concept best fits the case?
2. A customer’s activity suddenly deviates from the business profile on file. Which concept best fits the case?
3. An analyst is asked to tell a customer a suspicious-activity report has been filed. Which concept best fits the case?
4. Funds move rapidly through several apparently unrelated accounts after an initial deposit. Which concept best fits the case?
5. A sanctions screen matches a common name but the birth dates differ. Which concept best fits the case?
6. Ownership documents end at a nominee with an undisclosed controlling person. What is the most appropriate next step?
7. A customer’s activity suddenly deviates from the business profile on file. What is the most appropriate next step?
8. An analyst is asked to tell a customer a suspicious-activity report has been filed. What is the most appropriate next step?
9. Funds move rapidly through several apparently unrelated accounts after an initial deposit. What is the most appropriate next step?
10. A sanctions screen matches a common name but the birth dates differ. What is the most appropriate next step?
11. Ownership documents end at a nominee with an undisclosed controlling person. Which evidence would be most directly useful?
12. A customer’s activity suddenly deviates from the business profile on file. Which evidence would be most directly useful?
13. An analyst is asked to tell a customer a suspicious-activity report has been filed. Which evidence would be most directly useful?
14. Funds move rapidly through several apparently unrelated accounts after an initial deposit. Which evidence would be most directly useful?
15. A sanctions screen matches a common name but the birth dates differ. Which evidence would be most directly useful?
16. Ownership documents end at a nominee with an undisclosed controlling person. Which conclusion is best supported?
17. A customer’s activity suddenly deviates from the business profile on file. Which conclusion is best supported?
18. An analyst is asked to tell a customer a suspicious-activity report has been filed. Which conclusion is best supported?
19. Funds move rapidly through several apparently unrelated accounts after an initial deposit. Which conclusion is best supported?
20. A sanctions screen matches a common name but the birth dates differ. Which conclusion is best supported?
21. Ownership documents end at a nominee with an undisclosed controlling person. Which shortcut would most directly undermine the work in this case?
22. A customer’s activity suddenly deviates from the business profile on file. Which shortcut would most directly undermine the work in this case?
23. An analyst is asked to tell a customer a suspicious-activity report has been filed. Which shortcut would most directly undermine the work in this case?
24. Funds move rapidly through several apparently unrelated accounts after an initial deposit. Which shortcut would most directly undermine the work in this case?
25. A sanctions screen matches a common name but the birth dates differ. Which shortcut would most directly undermine the work in this case?
Show the answer key
  1. Beneficial ownership The named nominee may not reveal ultimate control.
  2. Ongoing customer due diligence The change is a risk indicator that needs context.
  3. Tipping-off restrictions Disclosure may be restricted and the rules vary by jurisdiction.
  4. Layering indicator Rapid movement may obscure origins but can have lawful explanations.
  5. Match resolution A name match alone can be a false positive.
  6. Identify and verify the natural persons who ultimately own or control the entity under applicable rules The named nominee may not reveal ultimate control.
  7. Review the activity against expected behavior and escalate unresolved discrepancies The change is a risk indicator that needs context.
  8. Consult the authorized compliance function and applicable disclosure rules Disclosure may be restricted and the rules vary by jurisdiction.
  9. Trace counterparties, timing and business purpose before escalating conclusions Rapid movement may obscure origins but can have lawful explanations.
  10. Check available identifiers under the applicable screening policy A name match alone can be a false positive.
  11. Corporate registers and independently corroborated control records Identify and verify the natural persons who ultimately own or control the entity under applicable rules.
  12. Customer profile, transaction history and supporting documents Review the activity against expected behavior and escalate unresolved discrepancies.
  13. Reporting policy and the relevant legal requirements Consult the authorized compliance function and applicable disclosure rules.
  14. Linked transfer records and verified counterparty information Trace counterparties, timing and business purpose before escalating conclusions.
  15. Name, date of birth, address and list-entry identifiers Check available identifiers under the applicable screening policy.
  16. The named nominee may not reveal ultimate control Corporate registers and independently corroborated control records would help support that assessment.
  17. The change is a risk indicator that needs context Customer profile, transaction history and supporting documents would help support that assessment.
  18. Disclosure may be restricted and the rules vary by jurisdiction Reporting policy and the relevant legal requirements would help support that assessment.
  19. Rapid movement may obscure origins but can have lawful explanations Linked transfer records and verified counterparty information would help support that assessment.
  20. A name match alone can be a false positive Name, date of birth, address and list-entry identifiers would help support that assessment.
  21. Treating the shareholder of record as conclusive ownership evidence The named nominee may not reveal ultimate control.
  22. Closing the alert because identity was checked at onboarding The change is a risk indicator that needs context.
  23. Confirming a filing to the customer without authorization Disclosure may be restricted and the rules vary by jurisdiction.
  24. Calling the transfer pattern proof of laundering by itself Rapid movement may obscure origins but can have lawful explanations.
  25. Declaring a confirmed match based only on spelling A name match alone can be a false positive.

These hypothetical cases use general forensic accounting principles. For real engagements, check the rules and standards that apply in your jurisdiction. AICPA Statement on Standards for Forensic Services