CFCI study materials
CFCI study resources

CFCI cheat sheet

CFCI · Keep the key ideas within reach.

Quick reference

Financial Crimes

  • Three-stage placement–layering–integration model: placement introduces illicit cash into the financial system, layering obscures the audit trail through transfers or trades, integration reintroduces funds as apparently legitimate assets.

  • Currency Transaction Report (US): financial institutions file for cash transactions exceeding $10,000 in a single business day; structuring below that threshold to evade filing is itself a federal offense.

  • Suspicious Activity Report (US): filing is triggered by transactions of $5,000 or more (bank threshold) involving suspected illegal activity or a pattern suggesting no lawful purpose; filings are confidential and safe-harbored.

  • Smurfing/structuring detection rule: flag clusters of deposits just under reporting thresholds across multiple branches, accounts, or days by related parties.

  • FATF 40 Recommendations: risk-based approach is core; customer due diligence tiers are standard, simplified, and enhanced, with enhanced DD required for PEPs and high-risk jurisdictions.

  • Three lines of defense in AML governance: business units own risk, compliance/AML functions monitor and advise, internal audit provides independent assurance.

  • Red flags of trade-based money laundering: over- or under-invoicing, misdescribed goods, double invoicing, and mismatches between shipping documents and payment amounts.

  • Benford's Law: in naturally occurring financial datasets, first digits follow a logarithmic distribution (1 appears about 30.1%); significant deviation can indicate fabrication or manipulation.

Quick reference

Cybercrimes

  • Phishing vs. spear phishing vs. whaling: mass deceptive email, targeted deceptive email using researched details, and targeting of senior executives respectively; vishing uses voice, smishing uses SMS.

  • Business email compromise (BEC): attacker impersonates an executive or vendor to redirect payments; indicators include changed bank details, urgency, and reply-to domains that differ from the display name.

  • Ransomware kill chain: initial access (phishing, exposed RDP/VPN), privilege escalation, lateral movement, data exfiltration, encryption, extortion; double extortion adds threatened data leak.

  • MITRE ATT&CK tactic order for mapping intrusions: Reconnaissance, Resource Development, Initial Access, Execution, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, Defense Evasion, Credential Access, Discovery, Lateral Movement, Collection, Command and Control, Exfiltration, Impact.

  • Card-not-present fraud indicators: mismatched billing and shipping addresses, multiple rapid order attempts, disposable email domains, and IP geolocation inconsistent with the card's issuing country.

  • Account takeover signals: credential-stuffing bursts from distributed IPs, impossible-travel logins, device fingerprint changes, and mass password-reset requests.

  • Botnet architecture: centralized (command-and-control server) versus peer-to-peer; takedowns target C2 infrastructure, domain sinkholing, and bulletproof hosting providers.

  • Cybercrime legal hooks commonly tested: unauthorized access statutes, computer fraud and abuse provisions, wire fraud for BEC, and identity theft where credentials or personal data are misused.

Quick reference

Digital Forensics

  • Order of volatility (RFC 3227): collect from most to least volatile - CPU registers and cache, RAM, network connections, running processes, disk, remote logs, archival media.

  • Chain of custody requires documented, unbroken transfer of evidence: collector identity, date/time, location, purpose, and signatures at each handoff; gaps can render evidence inadmissible.

  • Hashing for integrity: MD5 and SHA-1 are legacy; SHA-256 is standard. Hash the source before imaging and the image after acquisition; matching hashes demonstrate no alteration.

  • Write blockers prevent host writes to the source drive during acquisition; a forensic image is a bit-for-bit copy, verified by hash comparison.

  • File system timestamps: NTFS records $STANDARD_INFORMATION and $FILE_NAME timestamps (four each); $MFT entries can reveal timestomping when $FILE_NAME and $STANDARD_INFORMATION times conflict.

  • Deleted-file recovery: NTFS MFT entry marked unallocated retains metadata; FAT directory entries have the first character replaced by 0xE5; carving recovers files from unallocated space by signature.

  • Windows artifacts: registry hives (SAM, SYSTEM, SOFTWARE, NTUSER.DAT), event logs (Security, System, Application), prefetch, AmCache, ShimCache, and LNK files establish program execution and user activity.

  • Network forensics: PCAP analysis, NetFlow records, DNS query logs, and proxy logs establish exfiltration volume, timing, and destination; corroborate with host artifacts.

Quick reference

Fraud Examination and Investigation

  • Fraud triangle: pressure/incentive, opportunity, and rationalization; the fraud diamond adds capability as a fourth element.

  • Occupational fraud categories: asset misappropriation (most frequent, least costly), corruption, and financial statement fraud (least frequent, most costly).

  • Red flags in financial statements: unusual journal entries near period end, growing revenue with declining cash flow, related-party transactions, and unexplained changes in accounting estimates.

  • Interview sequence: begin with peripheral, non-accusatory questions and progress toward the subject; confront with documented evidence only after establishing baseline behavior.

  • Evidence types: documentary, testimonial, physical, and demonstrative; documentary evidence should be originals where possible, with authenticated copies otherwise.

  • Net worth method: reconstruct income and expenditures over a period; unexplained increases in net worth relative to known income indicate unreported funds.

  • Data analytics tests: duplicate payments, round-dollar amounts, vendor address matching employee addresses, and payments just below approval thresholds.

Quick reference

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing

  • Customer due diligence components: identify the customer, verify identity, identify beneficial owners (25% or more ownership is the common US threshold), and understand the purpose of the relationship.

  • Enhanced due diligence triggers: politically exposed persons, high-risk jurisdictions, complex ownership structures, and unusual transaction patterns.

  • Correspondent banking risk: nested accounts, payable-through accounts, and shell bank relationships are high-risk and often restricted.

  • Sanctions screening differs from AML monitoring: sanctions require strict matching against designated lists; AML uses risk-based thresholds and behavioral typologies.

  • Hawala and informal value transfer systems: settlement occurs without formal wires; indicators include frequent small transfers to unrelated parties and ledger-based records.

  • Recordkeeping: US rules generally require retention of CDD records for five years after account closure and transaction records for five years after the transaction.

  • Terrorist financing indicators often involve small sums, nonprofit fronts, and cross-border transfers inconsistent with the customer's stated purpose.

Quick reference

Cyber-Enabled Fraud and Incident Response

  • Incident response phases: preparation, identification, containment, eradication, recovery, and lessons learned.

  • Containment options during ransomware: isolate affected hosts at the network layer, disable compromised accounts, and preserve volatile memory before powering down.

  • Evidence preservation during incident response: capture memory and logs first, maintain a documented timeline, and avoid altering systems that may be needed for legal proceedings.

  • Payment fraud recovery: immediately contact the sending and receiving banks; wire recalls succeed only if funds remain in the receiving account.

  • Regulatory reporting clocks matter: many jurisdictions require prompt breach notification, and financial institutions have short SAR timelines (often 30 days) after detection.

  • Root cause analysis should distinguish initial access vector, detection gap, and response gap; each maps to a distinct remediation owner.

  • Metrics that matter: mean time to detect, mean time to contain, and percentage of incidents detected internally versus externally.

Quick reference

Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Forensics

  • Public blockchains are pseudonymous, not anonymous; clustering heuristics link addresses by common-input ownership and change-address behavior.

  • Chain analysis tools assign risk scores to addresses based on proximity to sanctioned entities, mixers, and darknet marketplaces; scores are probabilistic, not dispositive.

  • Mixers and tumblers break the direct transaction graph; coinjoin and privacy coins complicate tracing but do not eliminate it.

  • Exchange subpoenas are the common de-anonymization point: KYC records link a real identity to deposit and withdrawal addresses.

  • Transaction tracing should record transaction hashes, block heights, timestamps, input/output addresses, and amounts for evidentiary completeness.

  • Stablecoin flows are traceable on-chain and increasingly used in fraud and ransomware payments because of liquidity and price stability.

Quick reference

Regulatory Frameworks and Compliance Programs

  • US Bank Secrecy Act establishes AML program requirements: internal controls, designated compliance officer, ongoing training, and independent testing.

  • FATF mutual evaluations assess technical compliance and effectiveness; jurisdictions on the grey list are subject to increased monitoring.

  • The Wolfsberg Group publishes guidance on correspondent banking, CDD, and payment transparency used as industry benchmarks.

  • Compliance program testing should be risk-based, independent, and documented; findings require remediation tracking with owners and deadlines.

  • Whistleblower and retaliation protections are part of effective compliance culture; reporting channels must be accessible and confidential.

  • Cross-border data sharing is limited by privacy laws; information sharing often flows through formal channels such as FIUs and MLAT requests.