CAMS-RM study materials
CAMS-RM study resources

CAMS-RM study plan

CAMS-RM · Give each week a clear focus.

8 weeks · About 7 hours per week

Week 1

AML/CFT Risk Management Fundamentals and Governance

  • Map the four pillars of an AML/CFT program (policies and procedures, designated compliance officer, training, independent testing) to the exam's governance objectives and write a one-page outline for each

  • Distinguish the roles of the board, senior management, the MLRO/compliance officer, and the first and second lines of defense, and draft a RACI matrix showing who owns each AML decision

  • Explain the risk-based approach in your own words, including how customer, product, channel, geographic, and delivery-channel factors combine into an institutional risk assessment

  • Summarize the FATF Recommendations that anchor governance expectations (notably Recommendations 1, 18, and 26-27) and note how they translate into supervisory expectations

  • Draft a 10-question self-check on governance concepts and score yourself, logging every miss with the correct concept

Your checkpoint

A one-page governance map plus a completed 10-question self-quiz with a written correction note for each wrong answer

Week 2

Risk Identification, Assessment and Risk Appetite

  • Build an institutional risk assessment from scratch for a hypothetical mid-sized bank, scoring each inherent risk category and justifying every score in one sentence

  • Differentiate inherent, residual, and control risk, and calculate residual risk for three sample scenarios by applying control effectiveness ratings

  • Draft a risk appetite statement with explicit quantitative thresholds (for example, tolerance limits on high-risk customers and on unresolved alerts) and qualitative statements

  • Distinguish risk assessment from risk appetite and explain how each feeds the other in a governance cycle

  • List the key risk indicators you would track monthly and state the trigger point for escalation for each

Your checkpoint

A completed institutional risk assessment with scored categories, a one-page risk appetite statement, and a table of at least eight key risk indicators with thresholds

Week 3

Customer Due Diligence, Beneficial Ownership and Enhanced Due Diligence

  • Apply the four-step customer due diligence process (identification, verification, understanding purpose and intended nature, ongoing monitoring) to five customer profiles of varying risk

  • Trace beneficial ownership through a three-layer corporate structure and identify the ultimate beneficial owner using both the ownership-percentage and control tests

  • Select between simplified, standard, and enhanced due diligence for each of ten scenarios and justify the choice in two sentences

  • Identify red flags that require enhanced due diligence, including unusual source of funds, complex structures with no apparent commercial purpose, and reluctance to provide identification

  • Explain when a customer relationship must be declined or exited and how to document that decision

Your checkpoint

A case workbook covering ten customer scenarios, each with the CDD tier applied, the beneficial ownership conclusion, and a documented rationale

Week 4

Transaction Monitoring, Screening and Detection Scenarios

  • Design a transaction monitoring rule set for a retail bank, specifying the scenario logic, data fields required, and threshold rationale for at least six rules

  • Distinguish rule-based, threshold-based, and behavior-based monitoring and explain the trade-offs in false positive rate and coverage

  • Walk through alert triage end to end: alert generation, initial review, escalation, investigation, and disposition, naming the decision criteria at each stage

  • Analyze five sample alert narratives and write a defensible disposition for each, including what additional information you would request

  • Explain the difference between transaction monitoring and name screening, and describe how sanctions and PEP screening fit into the detection workflow

Your checkpoint

A monitoring rule specification document with six rules plus five written alert dispositions with supporting rationale

Week 5

Transaction Monitoring, Screening and Detection Scenarios & Sanctions, PEPs and Proliferation Financing Risk

  • Apply sanctions screening concepts to ten scenarios, deciding whether a potential match requires escalation and documenting the match-resolution logic

  • Distinguish targeted sanctions from comprehensive embargoes and explain how ownership-based (50 percent rule) and control-based designation extensions affect screening

  • Classify ten public figures as PEP, relative or close associate of a PEP, or not a PEP, using the definition of a politically exposed person and the source-of-wealth requirement

  • Explain proliferation financing risk, how it differs from terrorist financing, and which red flags (dual-use goods, trade-based discrepancies, front companies) signal it

  • Identify trade-based money laundering red flags in a set of invoice and shipping records and explain the discrepancy in each case

Your checkpoint

A screening and sanctions decision log covering ten scenarios with match outcomes, PEP classifications, and proliferation-financing red flag annotations

Week 6

Reporting, Investigation and Escalation

  • Draft a suspicious activity report narrative for a constructed case that states who, what, when, where, why, and how, without conclusory language, in under 400 words

  • Explain the reporting timeline, confidentiality obligations, and prohibition on tipping off the customer, and describe the consequences of each violation

  • Distinguish internal escalation from external reporting and map the decision path from alert to filed report with the approval gate at each step

  • Describe how to handle a law enforcement inquiry or subpoena, including documentation, scope limitation, and escalation to legal

  • Evaluate three weak SAR narratives and rewrite each to meet a defensible standard

Your checkpoint

One polished SAR narrative plus a rewritten version of each of three weak sample narratives, with a short note on what was fixed

Week 7

Risk Mitigation, Controls and Testing

  • Map the control environment across prevention, detection, and reporting layers and identify at least two controls per layer with the risk each mitigates

  • Design a testing plan for three key controls, specifying sample size logic, testing method, evidence to retain, and pass/fail criteria

  • Distinguish a control design deficiency from an operating effectiveness deficiency and write an issue with a remediation owner, action, and target date

  • Explain the independent audit or testing function's role and how testing results feed back into the institutional risk assessment

  • Draft a training program outline with audience tiers, frequency, content, and a method for measuring comprehension

Your checkpoint

A control testing plan for three controls plus one written issue with root cause, remediation plan, and owner

Week 8

Data, Technology and Model Risk in AML & Emerging Risks and Typologies

  • Explain model risk in AML systems, including model validation, tuning, threshold calibration, and documentation of assumptions, and describe the consequences of an unvalidated model

  • Identify data quality risks in AML (incomplete customer records, fragmented sources, inconsistent screening lists) and describe controls that mitigate each

  • Summarize at least five emerging typologies, such as virtual assets and mixers, synthetic identity fraud, and misuse of fintech payment rails, with the red flag for each

  • Explain how new products, delivery channels, and technologies trigger a risk assessment update before launch

  • Complete a timed 60-question mixed-domain practice set and review every missed item against the source domain

Your checkpoint

A one-page emerging risk brief with five typologies and their red flags, plus a timed practice score with a written review log of every missed question

Milestones

Week 2: Can build an institutional risk assessment and write a risk appetite statement with quantitative thresholds without notes

Week 4: Scores at least 70 percent on a 40-question set drawn from domains 1 through 4, with every miss logged and corrected

Week 6: Writes a defensible SAR narrative in under 400 words and correctly classifies PEP and sanctions scenarios at 80 percent or better

Week 8: Scores at least 80 percent on a timed 60-question mixed-domain set and has a correction note for every missed item