I am interested to hear what other banks do in this situation...Should employee transactions, such as loan payments, deposits and transfers be verified (initialed) by another employee? Some here at the bank think they should and some don't see the purpose. I see it as an internal control issue.

Whether or not they are initialed by another employee, processing your own transactions should be grounds for termination under your conflict of interest policies. Initials are one way to document the internal control, but there may be other methods to determine who processed a transaction such as teller machine receipts or system log-ons.

We do not allow employees to process transactions on their own accounts, or on any accounts on which they have a controlling interest. As such, any employee transactions are reviewed by a different employee in the course of being processed.

You are correct in viewing this as an internal control issue. Allowing employees to conduct their own transactions can open the doors to all sorts of abuse and misuse.

At my last bank we had the system security set so that transactions on any employee accounts could not be done without a supervisory override. Of course, this was in an on-line, real time environment.

New anon - Let me ask what others are considering processing their own transactions. Obviously tellers should not be processing their own cash transactions, loan officers processing their own loans, etc...However what if I write a check for a loan payment (using the coupon from the book) does this warrant going through a teller or can I simply place it in the work bin for proof to process?? Just wondering others thoughts...thanks!

All of our "proof basket" items must have officer initials.

All employee transactions must be ran through the teller work or have an officer initial them.

Employees are prohibited from running their own transactions, those of their family members or those of businesses or organizations with which they are affiliated.

We can run our transactions through another teller however they must still be subject to the same rules as any customers transactions. As a teller I would never process my own transaction nor that of a family member. We do not need officers to initial our transactions. What I have in my account or am putting in my account is not my managers business as long as I am not doing anything wrong. Employee accounts at our bank are strictly monitored by our Controls department and Human Resourses.

Employees are not authorized to process their own transactions, the transactions of family members or anyone/anything that they are directly affiliated with. This is stated in our code of conduct manual.

All employees are encouraged to run any transaction involving one of their accounts through a teller. However, if they do not take the the transaction to a teller (instead run it through a proof basket) they must have their supervisor initial off on the transaction. Tellers are prohibited from processing their own transactions. (We review this as part of our employee account reviews)

Sounds like overkill elena. If you treat employees like all of your other clients (ie some items need approval like large checks, etc., but why are you approving cash deposits?)

I've never been at a bank where I could process my own transactions nor those of a family member. In addition, we couldn't drop items in a proof basket because they wouldn't be reviewed using our standard processing for clients (ie approving the check if it was odd, or something similar). If an item needed approval, the manager would initial, but that was it.

You should have the ability to find out where a deposit comes from (which teller or person processed it) if there is a problem, so why bother with more?

Your customers don't place their transaction straight into the proof bin and nether should your employees.

We require ALL employee transactions to be run through the teller line...including supervisor and officer transactions. If it is after cut-off, then they are run the next day.