Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 404114, member: 5629&quot;]That older saying went further than just the first sentence. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp;&nbsp; If you take the context all the way through you end up with &quot;You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you shall see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother&#039;s eye.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; So the old saying you are thinking of actually speaks volumes more to how this whole thread progressed throughout the past few days, as opposed to &quot;situational ethics&quot;.&nbsp; Then again, the analogy with the $100 bill speaks directly to this saying as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the same situation, what would anyone of us do?&nbsp; Because the same judgment that everybody meted out here, is the self same judgment that we should receive if we did the same thing in the same situation.&nbsp; Something to really think about.&nbsp; As we speak to the OP we should remind ourselves that we are speaking to ourselves as well.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This assumption of facts goes even further than you might imagine.&nbsp; Every body is making an assumption that what the OP did was somehow &quot;wrong&quot; <b>because</b> he did not make an attempt to keep the bank customer from making a deposit.&nbsp; This person was not only &quot;at work&quot; but &quot;on the clock&quot;.&nbsp; The &quot;situational ethics&quot; seems to abound in the thinking here.&nbsp; Does it mean nothing that the OP was on the clock at work and very possibly abiding by company Policies and Procedures as well as internal Risk Management rules?</p><p><br /></p><p>Although many tellers will only glean over the P&amp;P, and won&#039;t memorize every aspect of their position, the general practice during their training will instill a lot of these policies and procedures into their work habit.</p><p><br /></p><p>It has been almost fifteen years since I worked for a bank, but I was the lead Compliance Analyst and Auditor for the Mortgage Banking Division of the bank I worked at.&nbsp; Failure to abide by not only government regulation, but also internal Policy and Procedure resulted in a number of branch employment terminations.&nbsp; I was also used a lot by the Risk Management department.&nbsp; This department works hand in hand with the legal department, just as the compliance department does, if the bank conducts internal compliance auditing.</p><p><br /></p><p>If a teller is caught accepting counterfeit currency, this is a major Safety and Soundness issue dealing with compliance.&nbsp; If a teller misappropriates funds to the wrong account, this again becomes a major Safety and Soundness issue dealing with compliance.&nbsp; If a teller accepts a coin or currency that the internal Policies and Procedures prohibits, this is an internal audit issue with Risk Management (and, yes, a bank CAN refuse deposit of U.S. legal tender coin).</p><p><br /></p><p>The same goes for a teller persuading a depositor not to deposit funds into an account.&nbsp; This, in fact, will become not only an internal audit issue, but also a compliance issue with Safety and Soundness.&nbsp; There are a number of legal ramifications for a bank employee to advise a depositor not to deposit funds...especially if the person is elderly!&nbsp; (though we know it was simply an &quot;older&quot; lady, not elderly).</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is a Safety and Soundness issue that could land the bank into legal trouble:&nbsp; the lady walks into the bank with $10 face value 1964 BU Kennedy halves &quot;worth&quot; $160 and puts them on the counter to deposit to her savings account;&nbsp; the teller advises the woman that the coin is worth 16x face value and should go sell them to a coin dealer rather than deposit the funds into her account; the lady leaves in search of a dealer to sell the coins to, thus not making the $10 deposit; an ACH withdrawal request comes into her checking account (which her husband made with their debit card assuming the $10 was being deposited), over drafting the account by $5; the savings account which she sought to make the deposit into is the overdraft coverage account, but since the deposit was not made, there is no money to cover the over draft; the bank initiates an over draft, charges her a fee; the payee receives the &quot;bounced&quot; draft back and initiates a service charge; the county prosecutor, looking for good PR in election year, decides to &quot;make an example&quot; (since writing or authorizing a draft on insufficient funds <b>IS</b> illegal), and &quot;all hell&quot; breaks loose, and the lady and her husband contact the regulating authority over the bank and a Safety and Soundness investigation is immediately conducted.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, in all of this, the bank <b>WILL</b> be investigated not only to determine why the teller discouraged the deposit (and the government will consider <b>NO</b> ethics argument as an excuse), and determine if this meets bank deposit soundness issues by determining if internal Policy and Procedures were followed.&nbsp; If not (and such discouragement most likely <b>is</b> in violation of P&amp;P), then the bank will be fined, and made to correct the situation with regards to the bank&#039;s fees, et al.&nbsp; However, the bank, in either case, will still be liable for an actionable suit for damages by the &quot;older&quot; couple.&nbsp; As well, the regulatory authority will then move on to determine if government regulations were violated in their safety assessment.&nbsp; Under their safety assessment, they will determine, first, if any federal or state laws were violated, including and especially those with regards to discrimination.&nbsp; They will then assess whether any internal rules were violated, which is a much lesser, but just as actionable, matter.</p><p><br /></p><p>After it is all said and done, the bank <b>will</b> be made to correct the situation internally, including revising the P&amp;P if needed, to ensure that such a situation does not arise again.&nbsp; This could possibly include justifiable termination of the teller.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, when you consider the possible outcome to a bank teller discouraging a deposit into an account when their intent of the depositor was to do as such, <b>and</b> considering from the &quot;same source&quot; as GD pointed to earlier, we are admonished to act <b>ethically and morally</b> in this manner:&nbsp; &quot;Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in <b>singleness of your heart</b>...&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I cannot see anywhere in anything the OP did that was in any way unethical.&nbsp; If anything, to discourage the deposit could have very well been deemed by authorities as illegal, unsound, and unsafe, and would as such had ended up being immoral as the overall outcome could very well have hurt his employer (or &quot;master&quot;) financially and caused the bank to receive an overall bad reputation and image.&nbsp; Definitely not being obedient, nor having a singleness of heart toward one&#039;s employer.</p><p><br /></p><p>But then, I guess it all depends on what you believe.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in