Checks in F-28,F-29,F-48 and F-53 for KONTO

[Former Member]

Hi Experts:

Let me elaborate my query for you all..We have three types of Bank GLs

Incoming GL(comprise of 6 digits,they start with 621 and always end with 1)

Outgoing GL(comprise of 6 digits,they start with 621 and always end with 2)

Main GL (comprise of 6 digits,they start with 621 and always end with 0)

Problem we are facing is end users have authorization to all of these GLs types for bank postings...What they do is, they some time enter and post Outgoin GL in Incoming t code like F-28 and F-29 , same is done in F-48 and F-53 where they enter incoming bank account and post. The situation gets even worse when they use main Bank account in these t codes , distorting our bank reconciliation process.

To overcome this we tried using field exit for data element KONTO_F05A , but it could not be successful as it started to produce DUMP in prd server.. Can anyone help me how can we restrict the wrong usage of GLs in the area mentioned

Br

Edited by: SAP Profesional on Nov 12, 2011 4:34 AM

[Former Member]

Any updates.....

[Former Member]

Did you try existing enhancement spot or implicit enhancement implementation to check the account no.

[raymond_giuseppi]

- Did you try FI validation (SPRO Financial Accounting, Financial Accounting Global Settings, Document, Line Item, Define Validations for Posting or OB28)

Regards,

Raymond

[Former Member]

Hi:

Yes i did but field KONTO is not there in GGB0 in BPF and BSEG.

Br

[Former Member]

Hi ,

you put validation on Field BSEG-HKONT Itself .

regards

Prabhu

[raymond_giuseppi]

- Check BSEG-HKONT when it is in bank account range.

- Also before checking SY-TCODE, look at transaction definition, eg. F-28 is actually FBZ1, F-29 is FBA2, F-48 is FBA7 and F-53 is FBZ2.

Regards,

Raymond

[Former Member]

Hi:

Using validation for BSEG-HKONT does not work. I have tried it before.

Br

[SuhaSaha]

> Using validation for BSEG-HKONT does not work. I have tried it before. 

What do you mean "does not work"? Looking at your question, i think this is a valid use case for FI Validations.

Unless you prove it otherwise

BR,

Suhas