Learn More - Click Here!

New Reply
Post Icon
Smilies Insert Link Insert Email Link Insert Image Link Insert Media Tag List Bold Italic Underline Strike-through Spoiler Quote Font Color Fonts Font Size
Make textarea smaller
Make textarea bigger
Post Options

HTML is disabled.
UBBCode is enabled.
Poll Manager (Total Polls: 0)

In Response To:
Thread Starter: Anonymous
Title: Re: Employee Banking

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by TMatt87
I bank where I work, but I never use my debit card except for ATMs. So my account history is my payroll, credit card payments, transfers to an online savings account, and ATM withdrawals. Not a lot to scrutinize.

Another anon here. The above statement, for me, is a pretty good illustration of why you shouldn't bank where you work. While a person may feel that there is nothing much to scrutinize because they aren't using debit cards (or because they only withdraw cash and never deposit any), the above scenario may actually be of interest to an internal reviewer, depending on volume, amounts, frequency, etc. (As illustrated in the thread, an anon poster questions, "So you pay cash for everything?" and RockChucker pops up with a theory; so if they were your co-workers, yeah, you'd be getting discussed and scrutinized if your account was flagged for review or was subjected to an automatic periodic review merely because you are an employee.)

For instance, if a bank employee withdraws $300 in cash once a month, we wouldn't even notice. But if a bank employee visits an ATM once a week, we would notice. We would have internal discussions about it: is so-and-so a gambler? Why all the cash withdrawals? Does he ever deposit any cash, any at all? Why? Does he pay any bills through this account? Why aren't there any "normal" transactions here? Who lives on cash? What doesn't he want his bank to see? What is he buying that he would want to only use cash? etc. It's a very short walk from "This employee's activity is weird" to "We have to file a SAR."

Being an employee lowers the SAR threshold to zero, and raises the interest in cash usage considerably. While there might not be a lot to scrutinize, there would be zero to scrutinize if there was no account at the employing bank.

Is that the same for customers? If a customer uses an ATM several times a week, that would be suspicious?

Our BSA would be from floor to ceiling with SARS if that were the case.

Seems to me it's just being nosy.