Cryptoasset Anti-Financial Crime Specialist (CCAS) Certification Practice Test

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $4.99 payment

Study for the Cryptoasset Anti-Financial Crime Specialist (CCAS) Certification. Prepare with comprehensive content tailored to cryptoasset anti-financial crime strategies. Master the exam format and excel on your test!

Practice this question and more.


Which two types of open source intelligence should a chief compliance officer focus on to improve customer due diligence?

  1. Private cryptoasset keys and bank account amounts

  2. Public cryptoasset keys and customer addresses

  3. Customer name and address, and Office of Foreign Asset Control lists

  4. Customer benefits and transaction history

The correct answer is: Customer name and address, and Office of Foreign Asset Control lists

The focus on customer name and address, as well as the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) lists, is crucial for a chief compliance officer to enhance customer due diligence. Customer identity information, including names and addresses, is foundational in verifying the legitimacy of clients and complying with regulatory requirements. This information helps establish a customer's profile, assess the risk they may pose, and ensures that financial institutions are engaged with legitimate clients. The inclusion of OFAC lists is particularly significant as it contains names of individuals and entities that are subject to sanctions. By cross-referencing clients with these lists, a compliance officer can identify potential risks associated with sanctioned individuals or entities. This is essential for preventing financial crime, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. In contrast, private cryptoasset keys and bank account amounts are irrelevant for compliance purposes as they are sensitive information not typically accessible for due diligence. Public cryptoasset keys and customer addresses do not provide sufficient depth of information. Customer benefits and transaction history might be useful in a broader risk assessment sense, but they do not directly contribute to the compliance requirements concerning identification and sanction screenings mandated by law. Therefore, the combination of customer identity details and OFAC listings provides a more comprehensive framework for effective compliance and risk management in customer