(no response in audit forum; thought I'd try here...)

anyone have an opinion on why these should be subject to different controls from active accounts? I can see segregating them, just to keep things orderly. But if we're talking about an imaging system where accounts are called up by number, or where it interfaces with our core deposit system, is there a reason you would restrict access to the closed cards moreso than the active cards?

Thanks.

For one thing, you don't want to create any confusion about whether the account is open or closed. If closed, there's really no need for most personnel to verify a signature, and access can be granted to those few who do. Much better than taking a chance that, for example, a new teller will cash a large item for an EX-customer.

Also, just because the account is closed doesn't mean that the customer has terminated their relationship with the bank. Let's do an extreme example: unscrupulous employee gets copy of closed sig. card and customer has a dormant account also. See a problem?

I (as a former ITS officer) would keep it as a "need to know" condition.

At my bank, transactions posted to a closed account are reviewed and refered to management, if warranted. I think we have sufficient controls in place, both for closed accounts and dormant accounts, as the second anonymous poster pointed out. Because of those controls, I would not worry about access to the closed cards