Which of the following customer behaviors would be considered a red flag requiring additional scrutiny under AML guidelines?
Correct Answer
C) Reluctance to provide information required by the Customer Identification Program
Reluctance to provide information required by the CIP is a red flag under AML guidelines. Customers who are evasive about providing required identification information or seem unusually concerned about record-keeping may be attempting to avoid detection of illegal activities.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Reluctance to provide information required by the CIP is a red flag under AML guidelines. Customers who are evasive about providing required identification information or seem unusually concerned about record-keeping may be attempting to avoid detection of illegal activities.
More Federal Laws Questions
A mortgage broker's website states 'Qualified borrowers can get loans with down payments as low as 3%.' Which statement about TILA advertising requirements is correct?
A loan's APR increases from 4.25% on the Loan Estimate to 4.35% on the Closing Disclosure due to a rate lock expiration. What action is required?
A lender originates a mortgage that meets all QM requirements. Three years later, the borrower defaults and claims the lender violated the ATR rule. What legal protection does the lender have?
For a closed-end mortgage loan, when must the creditor provide the Closing Disclosure to the borrower?
Which of the following documents must be provided to trigger the start of the 3-day rescission period?
People Also Study
General Mortgage Knowledge
23% of exam
Mortgage Loan Origination Activities
25% of exam
Ethics, Fraud & Consumer Protection
17% of exam
Uniform State Test Content
12% of exam
Previous Question
A borrower is purchasing a home with a federally regulated loan in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The loan amount is $180,000 and the building value is $150,000. What is the minimum flood insurance coverage required?
Next Question
Which scenario would most likely constitute a Fair Housing Act violation based on familial status discrimination?