TCCS One-Page Study Checklist
Last reviewed February 2026
(Print this. Stick it to the wall. Stop spiralling.)
✅ Before You Start
- ☐ Read the TCCS syllabus once, end to end
- ☐ Understand domain weightings and exam format
- ☐ Accept that this is a judgement exam, not a memory contest
📘 Core Materials (Non-Negotiable)
You must be comfortable applying the following:
1. SAR & Escalation
- ☐ Legal threshold: knowledge or suspicion
- ☐ When a SAR is required vs internal escalation only
- ☐ Timing: “as soon as practicable”
- ☐ Difference between standard SAR and consent SAR
- ☐ What makes a SAR narrative useful to law enforcement
2. Red Flags & Blockchain Forensics
- ☐ Common crypto ML typologies (mixers, layering, chain hopping)
- ☐ Difference between pseudonymity and anonymity
- ☐ What can be traced on-chain and what cannot
- ☐ Limits of blockchain analysis (privacy coins, L2s, custodial gaps)
- ☐ How to explain findings clearly without technical jargon
3. AML / KYC Controls
- ☐ Risk-based approach in practice
- ☐ Customer risk factors vs transaction risk factors
- ☐ Ongoing monitoring vs onboarding checks
- ☐ Documentation and evidence standards
4. Travel Rule
- ☐ When Travel Rule applies
- ☐ Required originator/beneficiary information
- ☐ What to do when information is missing or incomplete
- ☐ Escalation and blocking decisions
5. Professional Judgement
- ☐ Acting proportionately under uncertainty
- ☐ Making defensible decisions without full information
- ☐ Explaining why you acted, not just what you did
- ☐ Knowing when delay is acceptable and when it is not
❌ You Do NOT Need To
- ☐ Memorise FATF paragraph numbers
- ☐ Know specific compliance software tools
- ☐ Perform live blockchain tracing
- ☐ Quote legislation verbatim
- ☐ Reach “certainty” before acting
🕒 Exam Day Focus
- ☐ Read the question carefully
- ☐ Identify the risk
- ☐ Decide the action
- ☐ Justify the decision
- ☐ Write clearly and specifically
If you can do those five things, you are exam-ready.
TCCS Scenario Responses
What “Good” vs “Weak” Looks Like
This is the single most useful thing candidates never see.
A customer with a declared annual income of £30,000 deposits £45,000 in fiat over two days. Funds are converted to Bitcoin and sent to an external wallet. Blockchain analysis shows onward transfers through a known mixing service. The customer provides inconsistent explanations for the source of funds.
Question: What actions should you take, and why?
The transaction looks suspicious and could be money laundering. I would escalate internally and consider filing a SAR. Mixing services are risky and often used for crime. I would gather more information and monitor the account.
- Vague language (“looks suspicious”, “could be”)
- No clear decision
- No legal threshold applied
- No timing mentioned
- No justification of why suspicion is met
- Reads like avoidance, not judgement
This sounds safe but shows no professional competence.
The transaction presents reasonable grounds for suspicion of money laundering. The deposited amount (£45,000) is inconsistent with the customer’s stated income (£30,000 annually), and the customer has provided contradictory explanations regarding source of funds. The rapid conversion to Bitcoin and subsequent transfer through a known mixing service further increases suspicion, as this behaviour is commonly associated with attempts to obscure transaction provenance.
I would escalate the matter immediately to the MLRO and submit a SAR to the NCA as soon as practicable, including full transaction details, wallet addresses, and blockchain analysis findings. Given that the suspicious activity has already occurred, a standard SAR would be appropriate rather than a consent SAR.
The account should be subject to enhanced monitoring, and no further transactions should be facilitated without review. All investigative steps, customer communications, and decision rationale would be documented to ensure auditability and regulatory defensibility.
- Clear identification of suspicion threshold
- Specific facts linked to risk
- Correct SAR decision and timing
- Appropriate distinction between SAR types
- Proportionate controls
- Clear, regulator-friendly reasoning
This shows competence, judgement, and confidence.
What Markers Are Actually Looking For
In scenarios, markers are asking:
- Did you recognise the risk?
- Did you act at the right point?
- Was your decision proportionate?
- Can you explain yourself clearly?
- Would a regulator accept this rationale?
They are not asking:
- “Is this the perfect answer?”
- “Did you cite enough documents?”
Final Reality Check
A passing TCCS candidate does not know everything.
A passing TCCS candidate:
- Makes a decision
- Can justify it
- Can explain it clearly
- Knows when action is required
That is the standard.