The "mandatory 2 weeks time off at a time in many jurisdictions" statement might not be precise enough or technically accurate description of the legal status. It's more like "everywhere I know it's mandatory to take 2 weeks time off" and the mandate can come from the institution itself, their partners or a regulatory body recommendation or requirement.

I was in investment management for a us bank - here the requirement is all officers must take 5 consecutive days off to ensure at least one weekend is covered. Considering I never touched money, it was one of those fun perks of working for a bank, like taking 2 hours of elder abuse classes for regulations in a state I didn't live nor work in, and being tested yearly all about money laundering laws and regulations.

I worked in a bank in Europe that was Dutch owned and we were requied to take two weeks. I don't know of that was a company policy though.

It probably wasn't. In many places in Europe it's legally mandated for employees to have 1 big leave per year, at least 2 weeks, so that they can fully unwind.

https://www.codulmuncii.ro/titlul_3/capitolul_3_1.html

> (5) In cazul in care programarea concediilor se face fractionat, angajatorul este obligat sa stabileasca programarea astfel incat fiecare salariat sa efectueze intr-un an calendaristic cel putin 10 zile lucratoare de concediu neintrerupt.

"at least 10 working days of non-interrupted leave"

Of course, this is not always enforced, but many countries to have it as part of the labor code.

Sounds like these are recommendations some organizations can use or substitute by better methods of auditing. I would argue that if fraud can be covered by the presence of an individual, the problem is with the audit processes and controls in place.

Plus the individual being aware of the requirement could easily circumvent by only stealing every quarter or every month :-)

"Required Absences from Sensitive Positions" - https://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/circulars/10923.html

I worked at a Wall St. trading firm (albeit not in the trading area), and a lot of the back office/audity type people were required to switch roles every so often, so that any little unforeseen way to steal money somehow wasn't overlooked and "hoarded" by one person. In addition to multiple people having to sign off various things, etc.

IIRC, there were mandatory PTO/vacations required as well, so that everyone's job was done by at least 2 different people during the year.

This was not a legal thing, but required for the firm I worked at. My manager at the time said this was pretty common practice on the street, then. (Early/mid 90's.)

Yup, control counts a lot! Working at IBM just our of college, someone several levels up was getting a promotion for discovering an interesting loophole. Apparently, he'd discovered a way that four people could collaborate to exfiltrate just under $25 million (several decades ago) on Friday, and could be out of the country by Monday before it was noticed. The controls were previously good enough that it would take no less than 4 people cooperating. Obviously, he reported it, and this was good for a skip-level promotion.

I worked at an investment bank in the New York area. Employees had a two week lockout each year.

I was required at an American credit union. Having such a policy was a line item in state regulators’ auditing, but not mandated to the extent that the banking charter would have been lost if not fully in place.

London? Pretty common in all banks for front office staff.

A lot of Canadian businesses do because unused vacation banks are a personal liability of corporate directors (they’re treated as unpaid wages).

While individuals could ask for their vacation time to just be paid out, a lot of employers don’t like that because they budgeted to pay you 100% of your salary per year, not 104% or 106% (ie: paying you for both 52 weeks of work plus whatever weeks of holiday per 52 weeks).