Some examples of banking crimes such as embezzlement and illegal seizure are linked to theconcept of public service officers. According to the abolition of the Law on the Trial and Punishment of Public Service Officers approved in 1315 in accordance with Article 570 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the definition and examples of public service officers faced ambiguity and the unanimous decision number 798 of the General Board of the Supreme Court with the aim of resolving This uncertainty and reduction of the existing legal gap was issued regarding the inclusion of the sentence of Article 598 of the Penal Code against the employees of private banks. Whether, apart from the mentioned crime, the argument contained in the unanimous decision that the employees of private banks are considered to be public service officers, also extends to other banking crimes such as embezzlement where the term "public service officers" is mentioned in the text of the relevant legal article. Whether it was found or not has caused a dispute. Therefore, in this article, based on the library method, the existing challenges are described and analyzed, and the impossibility of extending the unanimous decision No. 798 to all banking crimes committed by the employees of private banks, proofs and suggestions for correction are presented.