Acams CCAS Exam Dumps

A 51% attack refers to a situation where a single miner or group controls more than 50% of the blockchain network's computational (hashing) power. This majority control allows them to manipulate the blockchain ledger by double-spending or blocking transactions.

This term is widely recognized in blockchain security contexts and is referenced in typology papers on crypto financial crime risks, including those issued by UAE authorities and FATF.

Supporting extracts:

DFSA AML thematic reviews mention the risk of manipulation and double spending in blockchains susceptible to 51% attacks.

Typology reports on cryptoasset risks highlight computational power concentration as a core vulnerability.

''51% refers to the percentage of total mining power or computational power in the network'' is the standard definition across crypto AML/CFT frameworks31.92._TFS_Typology_Paper_Eng__4.pdf; AMLCFT_Guidance_for_FIs.pdf.

Thus, C is correct.

Model risk management is the discipline focused on managing risks arising from the use of models, including those based on algorithms, machine learning, and AI in transaction monitoring and screening software.

DFSA and global AML frameworks highlight the need for strong model risk governance to ensure accurate detection and compliance.

Upon identifying customer engagement with unhosted wallets or P2P transfers, the first step a VASP should take is to collect and assess data on such transactions. This assessment helps determine if these activities fall within the firm's risk appetite and what enhanced controls or actions may be needed.

Immediate account freezing (B) is not the first step without assessment; neither is allowing transfers (A) without risk consideration. Enhancing risk frameworks (D) is important but follows from an initial data-driven risk assessment.

Relevant guidance:

FATF Recommendations and DFSA AML Module require VASPs to maintain a risk-based approach that begins with data collection and risk assessment on unhosted wallet transactions.

The DFSA's 2023 Dear MLRO letters and thematic reviews stress proportionality and evidence-based responses rather than immediate punitive measures.

Enhanced due diligence (EDD) and risk mitigation measures, including potentially freezing accounts, come after assessment of the risk levelAML/VER25/05-24: Sections 4.1, 6.4, 13; 20230406Dear_MLRO_Letter_re_IEMS.pdf.

Hence, C is the appropriate first action.

A token burn is the deliberate removal of tokens from circulation by sending them to an unspendable address. While sometimes legitimate, burns can also be misused for market manipulation.

The most critical information enabling FIUs to address anonymity risks is data linking a virtual address to the real-world identity of its owner. Without this association, blockchain addresses remain pseudonymous, hindering effective AML efforts.

While transaction timing (A), identity of receiver (B), and transaction-to-address mapping (C) are useful, ownership linkage (D) is essential to break anonymity.

FATF and DFSA guidance prioritize obtaining ownership information through KYC and intelligence sharing.