I am not confused. Here is a link to a CPA's site explaining the issue http://www.otcpas.com/advisor-blog/dual-signatures/#:~:text=By%20requiring%20two%20signatures%2C%20the,checks%20to%20a%20fictitious%20company. Dale
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:24 AM Michael or Penny Novack < stepbystepf...@comcast.net> wrote: > On 7/27/2020 4:50 PM, Dale Alspach wrote: > > I would not put much faith in requiring two signatures. It is unlikely > that > > the bank is actually paying any attention to this requirement. I learned > > this from a former bank employee who was on the board of a nonprofit I > work > > with. In other words it is an internal control only. > > > Not quite. > > You are perhaps confusing whether it would be caught at the time or only > detected later. I am pretty sure that if an organizational bank account > had a two signature rule and the bank allowed processing of a check with > only one and this was a case of embezzlement, the bank would end up on > the hook for it, not the organization (or their insurer). > > Note that this might or might not be to the organization's benefit, > especially if this check only a fraction of the total embezzlement. > Quite often embezzlement cases are resolved with "deals", no or reduced > jail time in exchange for getting money back*. But all parties must > agree to such deals. Can be acrimonious. I speak from experience (an > organization of which I was/still a member). One side "we want her to go > to jail" vs the "but if we agree to the deal we recover another $100,000 > back". > > In the case above, although no two signature rule, the (local, small > town) bank agreed should have been suspicious and their part of it was a > no interest loan for the period of probation during which the embezzler > was slowly paying some back. > > Michael D Novack > > * You are perhaps thinking only of assets the embezzler has in his/her > name. Not those the embezzler's spouse/family might be willing to part > with to keep the person pout of jail. Or what the embezzler might be > able to pay over time. Again in the above case, the family knew > something because measures taken that family assets NOT in her name. And > they were unwilling to surrender them to keep her out of jail. > Apparently not first time. > > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user > If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see > https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. > ----- > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All. > _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
