Introduction : IMF is widely criticized by the governmental and public opinion. Scoffed by the rich countries which blame him for spending for absolutely nothing the money of the taxpayer. The fund is criticized from everywhere, because of the lack of operation which imposes upon countries in trouble. The rigorous policy is indeed often imposed. The concrete measures often aim at opening the country to foreign capital, at liberalizing the labor market and at reducing the influence of the State in the economy (privatization). So many measures which are badly felt by the populations. I’ll tackle the main critics made concerning the IMF institution and eventually develop the consequences of their actions during the crisis. Consequences of the IMF actions during the financial crisis : Under the pressure of the IMF, managed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, several countries confronted with the effects of the crisis took themselves with the incomes of the employees and the social beneficiaries. Latvia imposed a decline of 15 % of the incomes of the state employees, Hungary deleted them the 13th month (having reduced the pensions within the framework of a previous agreement) and Rumania is about to make a commitment also in this way. And so Ukraine recently considered "unacceptable" the conditions imposed by the IMF, in particular the progressive increase ( of the age of retirement and the increase of the price lists of the accommodations. Some people denounce the double language of the IMF and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who, on one hand, ask to the international community to increase the efforts to reach objectives of development and on the other hand, force the governments having appeal to his services to lower salaries in the public service. It is a question of exact {text:soft-page-break} opposite of a true real policy intended there to face the crisis by defending the interest of