[Daviey]

The thing that confuses me... where did the supposedly lost money go? From my very basic understanding, the computer system said there was a gap in accounting, so it was assumed to be the operator that took it. There must have been millions of £ in "lost" money, but actual accounts couldn't have shown the loss, because there wasn't. Were these convictions purely based on the data from a computer system, with no forensics accounts of the theft or where the proceeds ended up?

[15457345234]

From reading the trial notes listed below I'd genuinely be astonished if they could answer that question. The 3rd line support staff (!!!) were literally inserting records into the database to balance transactions (!!!) using the command line client and stored procedures. Also, they were doing that based on their own understanding of the issue which had occurred and the action that needed to be taken to remedy the issue, and the records that were being inserted were indistinguishable from 'conventionally entered' transactions. In addition, some other level of staff - it seems like yet another layer of DBAs - had root on the database with no audit trail beyond logon/logoff.

The sheer number of routine failures that appear to have been accepted as part of the normal operation of the system is astonishing.