RDC
Searches on "TAHEIJI TAKETSU" should be conducted in RDC using which search types?
Person, Unknown, Organization?
What is... As it is difficult to differentiate this entity from an individual or an entity, it is safest to conduct searches on both person and organization.
TRUE FITNESS LIMITED is a KYC customer. However, you open the KYC file and see no account information/number. Additionally, they are banking with Chase in the transaction file. What KYC info should we provide in the Research file for this entity?
What is don't even provide any information as they are banking with Chase bank and not a customer of MUFG within the transaction file.
When conducting the initial search in Actimize, what should we be selecting as the case status on the drop down menu?
What is All Cases.
An RFI search was conducted and no results returned. Do we discuss this within the narrative?
What is yes we state an RFI search was conducted and yielded no results, as long as that screenshot is provided within the Research File.
The correct naming conventions for the Raw Data and Banks Tabs
What is Raw Alert ID BTMU# and Raw Banks Alert ID BTMU#
You are unsure if you should conduct RDC searches on Person or Organization. You can use the unknown option as an efficiency, true or false?
What is using Uknown as an efficiency is true.
Actimize and/or SAS results cannot all be included on one screenshot. Is this singular screenshot sufficient?
What is no a singular screenshot is not sufficient. We should include all results via screenshots or embed the file too many screenshots are required.
How many SARs should be sampled in Actimize and SAS?
What is all SARs within the 12 month review period, or the most recent SAR filed outside of the 12 month review period.
We can use the word "suspicious", should practice using the phrase "source of funds", and allowed to use "suspects" within our reviews.
What is, this is falsified information and should not be used in regular reviews.
If only 1 focal entity is present in a multiple alerts case, and related entities are present, we should be normalizing them with the focal entity.
What is AHT AHT. Don't you do that.
If only 1 focal entity is present on both the originator and the beneficiary sides, the related entities would be treated a counterparties.
We do not have a location provided for an entity. If a name match is identified within RDC results, should we review the results?
What is, yes these results should be reviewed as a name match was identified.
Searches should be conducted on MCKELLAN + INVESTMENTS CO LTD in what manner?
What is solely MCKELLAN or
MCKELLAN + INVESTMENTS
MCKELLAN AND INVESTMENTS
MCKELLAN & INVESTMENTS
When the sampled SAR is a false positive result, should we discuss the activity for which the SAR was filed?
What is not waste your time in discussing a SAR that is not relevant.
There are 4 counterparties or less identified in this review. What sampling language is required in the narrative?
What is no sampling sentence/statement is required as all counterparties will be reviewed, and we must remove all sampling language to avoid an error.
What are Values, Counterparty, Sum of Transaction, and Count of Transaction
RDC results including related entities or affiliates of the entity under review, is discussed how in the narrative?
What is.. related entities and affiliates are not discussed. We should be discussing the entity under review/the parent company.
When identifying a different language in the wire details, what steps should be taken/provided, or do we do anything at all?
Additionally, if language provided is ZI MAO QU TE SHU JIAN GUAN, what extra step should we take?
What is we should conduct google translation searches and provide a screenshot of the translated language.
Also, for the Chinese language, we should be conducting searches using lowercase letters.
ie. zi mao qu te shu jian guan
What sampling methodology should you use when the SAR indicator is Yes in SAS?
What is sampling by alert coverage and risk factors that aren't value and volume.
The focal, ABC STARS CO LTD, alerted on the beneficiary side and is a customer of MUFG Bank Ltd Chicago.
Within the narrative, how would you include MUFG Bank Ltd Chicago was the originator/intermediary clearing/beneficiary bank in the reviewed activity?
What is this is a trick question and we would not include MUFG Bank Ltd Chicago for this statement.
In this case, we should still only state MUFG Bank Ltd New York was an intermediary clearing bank in the reviewed activity.
How would we normalize the entities below..
000803999 - DISTRIPARTS COLOMBIA - 123 Blue Lane, Mexico
803999 - DISTRIPARTS COLOM - Blue Lane, Mexico
What is they would be normalized together as the account number is the same, the names are similar, and the address is similar, and the jurisdiction is the same.
The additional steps required when the RDC results include a PEP connection.
What is provide screenshots of the advanced searches (clicking on the Entity ID).
For reviewed underlying third parties, (including Aircrafts, MUFG Bank affiliates, and single-name individuals), full DD must be conducted.
True or False
False.
Full DD will ONLY be conducted on reviewed underlying third parties. Aircrafts, MUFG Bank affiliates, and single-name individuals do not require full DD.
When a case contains all Focused Review alerts, with multiple case entities within SAS, only one review is required.
What is false
When there are multiple same day wires, round dollar amounts, and repeated transactions were identified, how should we mitigate this in the conclusion?
What is..
Check for structuring, were the entities verifiable, wire details to provide additional info, are the entities within similar lines of business.. etc.
The entity MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC MOBILE ECONOMY had "MEME" within the wire details.
The entity MITSUBISHI CORPORATION LIFE SCIENCES had "MCLS" within the wire details.
How do we treat these acronyms found within the wire details?
What is we should determine if the acronyms are name variations of a present transacting party, or a separate 3rd party. However, full due diligence should still be conducted on the acronyms.
We should be determining if the acronyms and the entities are just a name variation, or completely separate entities.