Bank employee gets fired for playing crypto games

[bakasabo]

If a bank client really sees a bank employee gambling during working hours, and even at the workplace, then this will clearly make a negative impression of the bank as a whole. And if the employee really was warned by the employer, but he did not give up such behavior and his gambling, then of course the employer must fulfill the promise and fire him.
Of course, you are also right that dismissal follows warnings and in the event that the employee did not listen to them.
And the second option is image dismissals, which follow immediately after some obvious negative behavior of the employee. For example, he commits a crime and the employer finds out about it. Naturally, the bank cannot afford to keep employees with a dubious reputation.

In theory, how can a bank client see what employee is doing at work, when they sit on different sides of the table. If employee turns his monitor, and while having a conversation or giving explanation, gambles parallel on banks PC, then that is unacceptable. But would an employee really be so stupid to do that? You are absolutely correct that bank should not keep an employee with dubious reputation, but bank should not hire such person at first place. If they really had such an employee, then its HR department fault for giving a green light when they hired him.

[nullama]

In my opinion, not only crypto, but using local currency is also an undignified act, and I strongly agree that the bank employee was sent to prison, this step is to prevent theft of money in the future, this is just my assumption

Well, yeah, if a person is using other people's money to gamble then that's illegal, it doesn't matter if it is crypto or fiat.

At the end of the day there will be other employees that don't have those inclinations, and I think most employers in the financial sector would prefer them.

Or in any sector really, as long as they have access to the money of the business the gambler will be tempted to take it.

It's a tricky situation really.

[traderethereum]

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

It is really difficult to give an opinion on this matter whether he would have been fired from his job even if crypto was not involved. Because there are many facts that matter here, such as what their company policy says, what is in their company policy about gambling. Because if you look at it, gambling is still not considered right in many countries of the world. In most countries and organizations, there is a negative perception about gambling and this is seen a lot.
So it could be that he was fired just because of gambling. I don't think the crypto involved here matters much because currently, most online casinos accept crypto deposits.

If he is not addicted to gambling and can controls his gambling activity, maybe his company will not fired from his job. But that will depends on the policy on his company because many companies will not let their employee have a problem in gambling.
But we agree that in most countries, gambling have a negative perception so they will not tolerates if they know their employee often playing gambling. Maybe it is not because of crypto that makes him fired but other reason that the company can finds it easily.
So if we are an employee in a company, we must obey the rules so we will not gets a problem.

[Raflesia]

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

The fault is not really with the crypto and I wonder why the focus should be on the crypto playing a role in this when the important point is that he was gambling online and if I am not mistaken gambling especially using crypto as a means of gambling is illegal there so it is quite natural that this is a big deal and not really with the crypto but with his online gambling.

There are a few reasons why the bank might have done this.  First, they are in a real risky scope where the daily lives of employees must be related to money and when there are employees who are proven to be active gamblers, it is indeed feared that this could have an impact on other things in the end, especially in the article explained when the banks audit found that the employee did several things including being involved in inappropriate personal money lending which made this even more difficult for the bank to accept.
But once again the focus should be on the gambling and other activities of the employee not on the crypto which is the tool used in the gambling he does.

[mirakal]

In my opinion, not only crypto, but using local currency is also an undignified act, and I strongly agree that the bank employee was sent to prison, this step is to prevent theft of money in the future, this is just my assumption

Well, yeah, if a person is using other people's money to gamble then that's illegal, it doesn't matter if it is crypto or fiat.

At the end of the day there will be other employees that don't have those inclinations, and I think most employers in the financial sector would prefer them.

Or in any sector really, as long as they have access to the money of the business the gambler will be tempted to take it.

It's a tricky situation really.

Temptation—that’s the main concern of management, especially with all the reports of theft involving current employees caught up in gambling. Management likely just wants to prevent it from escalating rather than regret it later. There might already be reports about this individual, and it’s possible their performance is being affected. Gambling addiction can affect everyone both mentally and physically, and it is maybe that guy already showing something and reaching to the point where termination might be necessary.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s a harsh decision. Keeping them on could risk the company’s reputation, no matter how good they are at work. If I were the owner, I’d prioritize what’s best for the company over protecting someone who might jeopardize its future.

[stomachgrowls]

In my opinion, not only crypto, but using local currency is also an undignified act, and I strongly agree that the bank employee was sent to prison, this step is to prevent theft of money in the future, this is just my assumption

Well, yeah, if a person is using other people's money to gamble then that's illegal, it doesn't matter if it is crypto or fiat.

At the end of the day there will be other employees that don't have those inclinations, and I think most employers in the financial sector would prefer them.

Or in any sector really, as long as they have access to the money of the business the gambler will be tempted to take it.

It's a tricky situation really.

Temptation—that’s the main concern of management, especially with all the reports of theft involving current employees caught up in gambling. Management likely just wants to prevent it from escalating rather than regret it later. There might already be reports about this individual, and it’s possible their performance is being affected. Gambling addiction can affect everyone both mentally and physically, and it is maybe that guy already showing something and reaching to the point where termination might be necessary.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s a harsh decision. Keeping them on could risk the company’s reputation, no matter how good they are at work. If I were the owner, I’d prioritize what’s best for the company over protecting someone who might jeopardize its future.

There are instances that it isnt related to gambling on where employees that do work into those firms or companies which does involved huge amount of money on which they do have those kind of tendency that they would really be that tempted on stealing or using up funds on which arent their or into the company itself. This is why on the moment that they have seen up some potential problems that might arise then
they would really be trying out to cut it mid way and this isnt something shocking for them to make up such decision. Yes, it might that sound conclusive or harsh specially if there would be no warnings but actually they are really just that trying out to protect the business yet any use of some funds will always that affect them out. So its better to get rid of it while its still early.

In employees POV then it will really be that something shocking that you will really be getting fired just because you've been dealing up with gambling. Yes, its really that too much in terms of decisions be made
but there's nothing we can do if they will really be having that kind of decision, this is why its really important that you will really be that secretive at least into the things that you are dealing into
because you dont know on what would happen specially into your work related into the activities that you are that involved into.

[Lakai01]

[...]
Honestly, I don’t think it’s a harsh decision. Keeping them on could risk the company’s reputation, no matter how good they are at work. If I were the owner, I’d prioritize what’s best for the company over protecting someone who might jeopardize its future.

Many companies have special agreements about what employees are or are not allowed to do - even in their free time. I myself know bank employees who are not allowed to hold crypto assets such as Bitcoin. The bank cannot prove it (or only with great effort), but if it becomes known - for whatever reason - the employees are also dismissed.

In this case, it is even more understandable, as this could directly damage the company's reputation.

[nullama]

~snip~
Many companies have special agreements about what employees are or are not allowed to do - even in their free time. I myself know bank employees who are not allowed to hold crypto assets such as Bitcoin. The bank cannot prove it (or only with great effort), but if it becomes known - for whatever reason - the employees are also dismissed.

In this case, it is even more understandable, as this could directly damage the company's reputation.

Yeah, it depends on the role and the company.

Specially if the employee would have access to the financials of the company, or private data, I think it is fair to have some kind of background check for the employee.

It can be a bit invasive of privacy, but at the same time I kind of understand it from the point of view of the employer.

At the end of the day the employee can always work at another company or industry.

[delfastTions]

When a thing turns habitual surely it'll kill time. One such thing had taken place with employee. It is not about gambling, as said whatever he had done apart from his assigned task during the work hours is going to stop his productivity as well as the progress of the firm. This is well understood by the Boss and he had fired the employee.

Yes, all bad habits that are done during working hours will indeed result in decrease in worker productivity, especially if it is gambling activity, they will not focus on what to do because an employee must really maintain professional attitude and of course it is their own risk when the leadership takes some harsh consequences to their worker that makes mistakes.
But in context like this, no one will really know the truth except from the leader himself and his workers, anyone can lie.

It's wrong for employees to engage in some activity during work hours but they still have their lives to live, they can do something at times during their free period during work time or break time, the nature of the job matters and so long as it doesn't affect their job performance, they are good to go in my opinion

Even this guy in the OP claimed that he didn't do it during the work hour and the court did not argue about that except for the use of cryptocurrency. But I wonder when cryptocurrency suddenly becomes an issue in a country like South Korea, if not that the judge is anti-crypto.

It has already been discussed earlier that the mention of cryptocurrency immediately creates negative associations with criminal activity in many people who are completely unfamiliar with it. So it all also depends on how a specific employer or even a judge, as you mentioned, treats cryptocurrency.

I know, it's no news that crypto is being painted black in many spheres, but in this case, I see no reason why a neutral judge would sentence someone due to his crypto involvement in a country like South Korea where cryptocurrency is legal. If not for personal hatred for cryptocurrency, no amount of allegation against crypto use by the employer against the employee should have warranted the judge to deliver such an unfavourable verdict against the employee. This was even painfully off the scope of the suit.

Well, of course, if a judge strictly follows the laws of the country, which he is generally obliged to do simply by performing his official duties and simply based on his status and conscientious consideration of the case, then he should not in any way take into account his negative attitude towards cryptocurrency. Especially when it is legalized in the country and when judicial practice on crimes with cryptocurrency has already been established. But in general, it is difficult to judge the conscientiousness and honesty of a judge in advance, especially when potentially higher judicial authorities, up to the Supreme Court of the country, can challenge and overturn his decision. This is a painful blow to the reputation of the judge and this at the same time and often in some ways distorts the conscientious execution of justice as a whole.

[jossiel]

~snip~
Many companies have special agreements about what employees are or are not allowed to do - even in their free time. I myself know bank employees who are not allowed to hold crypto assets such as Bitcoin. The bank cannot prove it (or only with great effort), but if it becomes known - for whatever reason - the employees are also dismissed.

In this case, it is even more understandable, as this could directly damage the company's reputation.

Yeah, it depends on the role and the company.

Specially if the employee would have access to the financials of the company, or private data, I think it is fair to have some kind of background check for the employee.

It can be a bit invasive of privacy, but at the same time I kind of understand it from the point of view of the employer.

At the end of the day the employee can always work at another company or industry.

Company needs to protect itself from possible intruder through the employees. So if the management sees something wrong with how that employee moves, they have all the rights to protect the company based on their policy and interest.

They are in the financial services and so it doesn't align with the behavior and activity of that employee. Also, much worse if that employee downloaded something such as a malware that could lead into the access of their very sensitive data unknowingly. Even if it's from his device but who knows if he's connected to their network.

[Miles2006]

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

Crypto as a threat has led to hatred, not just the bank rather the government and law is totally against crypto. I’m yet to research the relationship between both parties if the country is crypto friendly, I always believe the political system will not treat bitcoin same as fiat. Reading the explanation above it’s obvious the employee got fired due to gambling involving cryptocurrency, aside the issue stated gambling during free time at work is normal if only it’s allowed by the organization but, if the person in question knew the law perhaps avoiding such move sounds better.

[dunfida]

~snip~
Many companies have special agreements about what employees are or are not allowed to do - even in their free time. I myself know bank employees who are not allowed to hold crypto assets such as Bitcoin. The bank cannot prove it (or only with great effort), but if it becomes known - for whatever reason - the employees are also dismissed.

In this case, it is even more understandable, as this could directly damage the company's reputation.

Yeah, it depends on the role and the company.

Specially if the employee would have access to the financials of the company, or private data, I think it is fair to have some kind of background check for the employee.

It can be a bit invasive of privacy, but at the same time I kind of understand it from the point of view of the employer.

At the end of the day the employee can always work at another company or industry.

Company needs to protect itself from possible intruder through the employees. So if the management sees something wrong with how that employee moves, they have all the rights to protect the company based on their policy and interest.

They are in the financial services and so it doesn't align with the behavior and activity of that employee. Also, much worse if that employee downloaded something such as a malware that could lead into the access of their very sensitive data unknowingly. Even if it's from his device but who knows if he's connected to their network.

They will really be doing all sorts of things on which it will really be that indeed protect the business totally and even if it means on firing out immediately that employee on the spot could really happen yet replacements will really be that easy to find. It might sounds harsh but they cant be able to risks out and would be just doing nothing into something that they do know that there's that probability that it could really be able to happen on which it will really be just that better to act fast rather than on being sorry in the end. If there are some stated violations on which a certain employee had done then there's no such explanation needed on why he/she was laid off.  This is why its really that at least put up into your mind that its better to be secretive into the things that you are dealing into because even people on your work
will be able to notice something that might affect out your work and their company will definitely be giving out such possible impact that will be causing on losing your job.

[nullama]

~snip~
Company needs to protect itself from possible intruder through the employees. So if the management sees something wrong with how that employee moves, they have all the rights to protect the company based on their policy and interest.

They are in the financial services and so it doesn't align with the behavior and activity of that employee. Also, much worse if that employee downloaded something such as a malware that could lead into the access of their very sensitive data unknowingly. Even if it's from his device but who knows if he's connected to their network.

Yeah, that's fair enough, but actually downloading something into the company computers is something that many people would do, unfortunately.

It doesn't have anything to do with being an addicted gambler, many people will simply connect a USB they found on the street for example.

That is one of the simplest attacks someone can do and they are usually successful. People don't really think twice about those things.

[KiaKia]

In South Korea, A bank employee was found to be playing online games that use crypto as its in game currency. The bank claimed that the employee is a habitual gambler and fired him from his job. The ex-employee naturally raised his concern to HR as he thinks it is unfair dismissal but the HR rejected his appeal which led him to file a lawsuit. In the end, even the court sided with the bank. Even though the ex-employee claims that he never played during work hours and that his habits did not interfere with his work quality, the court rules it to be undignified to be gambling with crypto.

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

Correct me if I am wrong, crypto was never banned in south Korea as per my investigation, or maybe I am not doing a better digging? I think this is all about playing games at working hour, even if it doesn't affect his work quality he might make some big mistakes some day, people need to learn how to be responsible, video games are good when you are on your free times not at work, even if you get a break from work it is still not good to pull out your Rog Ally or Legion go and start playing.

Also no one knows how trusty this person is at work, there are some past issues with companies data getting compromised only to find out that it was a inside job, you need to follow the rules of your company or avoid them, it is that simple, I don't see anything wrong with the way this guy is treated, it suits him right.

[summonerrk]

~snip~
Company needs to protect itself from possible intruder through the employees. So if the management sees something wrong with how that employee moves, they have all the rights to protect the company based on their policy and interest.

They are in the financial services and so it doesn't align with the behavior and activity of that employee. Also, much worse if that employee downloaded something such as a malware that could lead into the access of their very sensitive data unknowingly. Even if it's from his device but who knows if he's connected to their network.

Yeah, that's fair enough, but actually downloading something into the company computers is something that many people would do, unfortunately.

It doesn't have anything to do with being an addicted gambler, many people will simply connect a USB they found on the street for example.

That is one of the simplest attacks someone can do and they are usually successful. People don't really think twice about those things.

Those who connect unknown (and their own) USB devices to the computers of the company they work for are to blame for the fact that they are later fired.

Every normal company has a security department that will not allow negligent employees to play games on work equipment and download files that may be the intellectual property of the company.

[Kelward]

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

Except the bank has a laid down policy against using crypto or gambling with it, I think that it's unfair to fire the worker because he gambled with crypto. Perhaps there's more to the story but if it's just him gambling with crypto, especially not doing so during work hours, then there must be something wrong somewhere. Perhaps the bank prohibits their employees from engaging in gambling, not specifically crypto gambling alone, then it'll make some sense. There's no competition between cryptocurrency and fiat currencies so normally the issue of bankers holding or spending cryptocurrency shouldn't be an issue.

[jossiel]

~snip~
Company needs to protect itself from possible intruder through the employees. So if the management sees something wrong with how that employee moves, they have all the rights to protect the company based on their policy and interest.

They are in the financial services and so it doesn't align with the behavior and activity of that employee. Also, much worse if that employee downloaded something such as a malware that could lead into the access of their very sensitive data unknowingly. Even if it's from his device but who knows if he's connected to their network.

Yeah, that's fair enough, but actually downloading something into the company computers is something that many people would do, unfortunately.

It doesn't have anything to do with being an addicted gambler, many people will simply connect a USB they found on the street for example.

That is one of the simplest attacks someone can do and they are usually successful. People don't really think twice about those things.

True.

There have been instances and massive hacking that happens through irresponsible insertion of infected USBs or download of files with malware using the company's PC and resources.

This is what these companies are trying to avoid, they're doing everything for their best interest even if they trust their employees.

[2Pizza410000BTC]

In South Korea, A bank employee was found to be playing online games that use crypto as its in game currency. The bank claimed that the employee is a habitual gambler and fired him from his job. The ex-employee naturally raised his concern to HR as he thinks it is unfair dismissal but the HR rejected his appeal which led him to file a lawsuit. In the end, even the court sided with the bank. Even though the ex-employee claims that he never played during work hours and that his habits did not interfere with his work quality, the court rules it to be undignified to be gambling with crypto.

If crypto wasn't involved, do you think this employee would have gotten fired?

For gambling, big financial institutions will never allow you to gamble because they handle money and their main means of business is money. So if a bank officer is addicted to gambling, he will not be able to do the bank accounts and all the work there properly, he will always be inattentive to work, his mind will be on gambling. No matter what the man says here, he is addicted to gambling, he had to lose his job because of his gambling addiction, if he had not been addicted to gambling, he would have got a verdict in his favor in the court.

So even if his gambling had not involved crypto, he would still have been fired because the bank never allows any employee to gamble and their constitution may not allow it. However, he should have been gambling secretly at home for entertainment.

[Awaklara]

For gambling, big financial institutions will never allow you to gamble because they handle money and their main means of business is money. So if a bank officer is addicted to gambling, he will not be able to do the bank accounts and all the work there properly, he will always be inattentive to work, his mind will be on gambling. No matter what the man says here, he is addicted to gambling, he had to lose his job because of his gambling addiction, if he had not been addicted to gambling, he would have got a verdict in his favor in the court.

So even if his gambling had not involved crypto, he would still have been fired because the bank never allows any employee to gamble and their constitution may not allow it. However, he should have been gambling secretly at home for entertainment.

what the company does is cover the risk of its employees who may be addicted to gambling. because it can harm other employees, and even harm the company.
gambling is not the cause of an employee becoming bad. but the employee himself makes them bad at gambling.
gambling activities can be done secretly. that's when he first tried gambling. but when he played more often and started to get addicted, there would definitely be someone who would suspect him.

[nullama]

~snip~
Those who connect unknown (and their own) USB devices to the computers of the company they work for are to blame for the fact that they are later fired.

Every normal company has a security department that will not allow negligent employees to play games on work equipment and download files that may be the intellectual property of the company.

At the same time, the companies doing the most interesting work usually require running computers without too much restrictions.

And also people can end up copying data with different methods, USB just being a simple one.

You can use other methods, like Bluetooth, or even QR codes to transfer data.