No, I don't think so. I have a hunch what you are trying to say, but since I try to not second guess, I would like to hear your argument, why and how China's neglect or ineptitude to hold projects accountable would be a positive feature for a sponsor.
If you want to embezzle funds, would you rather do it through a country with strict checks or a country with no checks at all? The choice of China will give a nice cover against an investigation.
The controlling powers will then divert the resources to these jurisdictions. The sponsor (Germany) will not see a net benefit but this is the problem with public funds since they are disconnected from the tax payer.
Thanks for clearing that up! However, we don't have cases of embezzlement but of fraud. Of course the fraudster, ie. the involved corporations, would have an interest in obfuscating their tracks, but the sponsor would not. The controlling power is the sponsor, ie. the federal ministry of environmental protection, and I doubt they wanted to be defrauded. This is why I said I don't get why anybody would sponsor under these conditions. That's a case of ineptitude and neglect, but not malice.
