I've gone to pains to explain how sectoral projects like these arise organically, as information is fed from auditors on the ground upwards several layers of management, often over years, resulting in a pattern / trend of behaviour emerging. You have dismissed it with a single sentence "There is an excuse for all inactions."
I am saying there hasn't been inaction - the area has been subject to the normal audit programme just like every sector, and based on the outcomes, the sector has been prioritised for further attention. Now, could you kindly address my points in the spirit of debate rather than dismissiveness - either the modus operandi as I've described is factually correct, in which case you might explain what you find repugnant about it - or else you can assert that the process I've described isn't how it works, in which case you might explain how you think it works.