[jetbooster]

If said employee were actively defrauding the company and covering their tracks, they would be unable to make any fraudulent transactions or track covering in those 10 days. It's probably more like 16 days ultimately since it's probably business days, so there are 3 weekends as well. This would show up as a statistical difference in rejected transactions, contract overshoots, expense claims, something like that, I don't commit fraud.

It would also potentially expose any conspiritors, because the locked-out employee's responsibilities+communications would be forwarded to someone else for those 10 days. This wouldn't help you if the locked-out employee contacted conspirator's out-of-band to warn them however.

At least, that's the explanation. I guess the logic is that to avoid this, you would need to be making _larger_ fraudulent moves, less often. This would show up stronger against the background trade. Alternatively, simply the existence of these very obvious anti-fraud measures discourages people even if it's entirely possible they are a placebo. Similar to Lie Detectors, which only work on people who believe they work.

I think it's value for company resilience doing forced hit-by-a-bus tests on their employees on the regular is far more valuable in the long run.