A strange event occurred in a German bank in 2012 when a tired staffer dozed off in the middle of processing a financial transaction. Instead of the 64.20 euros that was intended, an incredible 222,222,222.22 euros, or 222 million euros (Rs 1986 crore approx.), were sent as a result of his accidental sleep with a finger held on the keyboard.
Another employee caught this enormous error in time, and it was fixed before the transaction could proceed. The error was worth $234 million, or almost Rs 2,000 crore. Online, the revived tale generated a heated discussion, according to ET report.
Without noticing the error, the supervisor who was supervising the clerk’s job authorized the incorrect transaction. The bank later dismissed her for improperly verifying the transaction, which led to a court battle that ultimately resulted in German bank.
State court calls termination unfair
The ET report states the supervisor’s termination was declared unfair by the Hesse state court. It concluded that even though she might have missed the mistake, her behavior did not justify dismissal. The judges observed that she was under a lot of time pressure to analyze hundreds of transactions every day as part of her job. She had spent only a few seconds on each of the 812 documents she had checked on the day of the incident, leaving little time for careful examination.
The court underlined that there was no proof of the supervisor’s willful misconduct or egregious carelessness. The judges decided that a formal warning would have been adequate in place of termination. They ruled that the bank’s expectations were unreasonable and that its failure to put automatic error-detection measures in place was the reason they ordered her reinstatement, as per ET report.
Incident underlines extensive structural problems in banksThe event brought to light more extensive structural problems in the bank. Numerous internet commentators noted that improved safeguards could have avoided similar mistakes. For example, automated flagging systems might have identified a transaction with such a big value and needed more confirmation.
The fairness of assigning all accountability to a single supervisor who was supposed to manage an excessive number of transactions was also questioned by critics. They maintained that human mistake was just as much to fault as the bank’s operational procedures and absence of redundancy measures.
