"Moral Hazard" discussions generally focus on low-income victims so much that most people don't realize that, while the fallout is calamitous for the poor, it is conclusive for the rich...& the single gravest source of moral hazard crimes is governmental slush funds, which spring from mismanagement, by the UN, IMF, WHO, etc.
For instance, which bank's clientele face moral hazard risks from the Pakistan Power Subsidy Slush Fund:
-JPMC?
-Goldman Sachs?
-Barclays?
-Societe Generale?
-Deutsche Bank?

Many intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) get so invested in the mission to serve & protect governments, they occasionally innocently harm the very entities they were designed to safeguard.
Take the events that followed the creation of the IMF-Islamabad electricity subsidy slush fund:
1. The IMF instructed Islamabad to offer an imported raw material tariff discount, in return for a "plea bargain"?
2. The Minnesota Medicaid Scandal illustrated how IGO non-compliance is passed on to governments?

Rumor has it that the IMF, unable to justify the step of coercing a declaration of bankruptcy to claim the promised electricity subsidy, has instructed Islamabad to begin a research project into lowering tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, in the hope that international analysts & investigators may feel "immoral" if they question the admissibility of said "shell-game-style" switch.
But how may distributing cheaper medicines, while laudable, counter risks from the multi-billion subsidy slush fund?

The Statue Of Liberty is a World Heritage Site for a reason: It is a reminder of how closely Liberty, Justice & Wisdom are linked, as symbolized by Lady Liberty's resemblance to Dike (Goddess of Justice) & Athena (Goddess of Wisdom).
Considering this, is it yet further evidence of intergovernmental organizations' commitment to governmental ascendancy only, that the UN hasn't served notice to Washington to explain its response to the US Department Of Justice threat to level the Statue Of Liberty?

The problem with a credibility crash, is that the subject's underlings usually try to demonstrate solidarity with the subject rather than repair the damage.
Case in point:
President Trump's credibility is still on life-support despite the dissolution of his ill-conceived slush fund, the "anti-weaponization fund".
Did US Government employees commence repairing the damage...or did they state that President Trump could tear down the Statue Of Liberty if US taxpayers don't fund his ballroom project?

The US "anti-weaponization fund" has enough illegal features to have secured a cease-&-desist order from the courts; but President Trump's legal immunity protects him from legal liability.
Now here's the catch: Given his seeming slush fund ambitions, which aggrieved party (in any case) could argue that they weren't aware of his attitude toward legal obligations? Can a person manifestly responsible for abuse of power be viewed as someone whose word could be a standalone guarantee in any contract?

With great power comes great liability.
This timeless & universal principle poses 2 thought-provoking questions:
-Slush funds - like the road to Hell - are linked to good intentions...only. Did the introduction of self-abasement, i.e. "I'm bankrupt!", turn the IMF-designed PK power subsidy budget into a slush fund?
-EU rep K. Kallas held a few geopolitically-questionable meetings with top Pakistan Government officials. Did that trigger the ongoing massive high-level official reshuffle in the EU?

The IMF electricity subsidy renders the lack of any economic partnerships during the EU VP's Islamabad visit understandable. But, given the themes of Pakistan's defense & the US-Iran conflict, Ms. K. Kallas' activities raise a grave geopolitical question:
Are the rumors true that outgoing French President Macron & embattled German Chancellor Merz plan re-writing the EU as a competitor to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
Another instance of mission creep in intergovernmental organizations?

The IMF has allocated a subsidy for Pakistanis who consume up to 200 electricity units per 30 days. But eligible claimants get nothing until they swear they are indigent, & the government accepts that. So, most consumers get nothing. This poses 2 questions:
-Since how long has the unclaimed IMF subsidy slush fund been accumulating, how much is it so far, & who operates the account(s)?
-Given the AML/CFT ramifications of slush & black bag funds, why is the FATF seemingly uninterested in the case?