“I knew him for years. He was like family. How could he do this to me and my business?”

It’s an all-too-familiar question after a long-term or trusted employee is caught or suspected of stealing from a company. So, what happens that makes it all go so wrong?

Simply put, cash is the great attractor – while we all interpret that lure differently, its visceral, kindly promise of freedom occasionally becomes too irresistible for human nature to ignore. Many businesses are not aware of, or at least, are not able to consistently identify, hire, educate and train around this fact. In CIT and Security, the breakdown is most often in one or more of The Three P’s (Policy, Process, and Procedure), but it’s certainly not an isolated phenomenon. Retail establishments, financial institutions and more all struggle with it.

The Three P’s are designed to reduce and control both the likelihood (risk probability) and severity (risk impact) of loss relating to risk; in this example, employee theft. For context:

• Policy is a rule or set of guidelines;
• Process is a high-level set of criteria that must happen in order to ensure compliance with a policy; and
• Procedure is a specific, detailed series of actions that staff members must take in order to implement a process and comply with a policy.

With the recent COVID-19 pandemic, business transactions and revenues are down, and we have seen a surge in employee terminations, furloughs and the like. As a result, many businesses are operating with lean staffing, which can cause breakdowns in segregation of duties, intentional or not. Where two persons may have been required by policy pre-COVID to perform an action, e.g. accessing the safe or vault, conducting physical inventory audits or daily cash reconciliation and balancing, the reduction in staff has caused those policies to become lax in order to continue operations. In doing so, many dual control and custody procedures have led businesses to allocate more access control capabilities to those “long-term” or “trusted” employees. Which can lead to situations like the ‘Not him!’ referenced above.

So, what can be done with limited staffing during these times to protect people, brands, and profits? Below are a few best practices that can be applied across any business, large or small:

• Review your internal policies and processes and provide management oversight to ensure that procedures are being adhered to per company policy and that no one person has too much access to a particular asset or function, including:
  • Access device (key, card, combination, code) controls .
  • Dual control/custody system of checks and balances.
    • Ex: verification of deposit preparation, either 2^nd person or virtual (FaceTime, CCTV, Zoom, etc.), bank pick-ups and deposits in person (no night drops if only one person can perform) and confirm deposit or examine credibility of tamper proof deposit bag before leaving (bringing back deposit slip for verification and documentation).
  • Utilize both Employment Background Screening, regardless of the relationship or previous work history, and a true continuous court records monitoring solution to get the whole picture.
  • Require job-specific training that is documented and acknowledged via signature of the trainer and trainee to ensure adequacy, accuracy and completeness.
  • Incorporate random and unannounced internal and external audits, testing the aforementioned policy, process, and procedure with staff. Examples may include:
    • Cash drawer audits, to be performed by employee and management at the beginning and end of shift; cash drawers should be assigned to one user only.
    • Cash drawer documentation, in the event more cash is needed or removed a verifying document should be signed by two people, i.e. employee and management.

These best practices are intended to provide some potential resolutions to but a fraction of the challenges that businesses face in fighting theft. By improving potential vulnerabilities and understanding the importance of applying essential policies, processes, and procedures, businesses can – and do! – reduce the likelihood and severity of loss relating to employee theft.

Remember, cash may be king, but it’s still your kingdom.

Interactive Teller Machines (ITMs) present a win-win for customers and banks alike. These machines offer new levels of automation, allowing banks to efficiently deliver a wide range of banking services. ITMs free up teller lines for higher level services, allowing customers to take care of basic needs on their own. ITMs bring new levels of convenience for customers who are increasingly comfortable with digital banking services.

ITMs also open up new opportunities for CIT carriers who are able to step up to the demands of servicing a more complex machine. That said, the details of ITM servicing cause concern and complexity. Consider the placement of the ITMs. While convenient for customers, their placements often put carriers at increased risk of attack. Not to mention the time it takes to service an ITM, which is significantly longer than a traditional ATM. These longer service windows also add to a carrier’s risk.

Our latest slideshow resource sheds light on emerging risks CIT carriers face as they look to expand their banking relationships to handle ITM servicing.

Flip through the presentation here:

Robberies of armored CIT vehicles are a real risk faced by companies and their drivers. Violent robberies, which involve physical assault, guns, chemical sprays, and even murder, are quite another. Violent robberies are on the rise and have become a prevalent concern for armored carriers, even more so than in banks. The phenomenon is profound: while violent bank robberies occur in only 3.5% of all robberies, 49% of armored car robberies involve a violent act.

Armored car operators and personnel face a dual threat, as both the number of robberies and the presence of violence are on the rise. Strides have been taken to address these safety concerns, including the Hobbs Act, which establishes armored car robbery as a federal crime. However, findings indicate that this legal amendment has failed to deter the most violent criminals.

It is paramount for CIT operators to proactively address this rising threat. In our latest infographic, we present the most up-to-date research on armored car robberies and offer 8 ways to combat the threat of violent robberies.