If that were guy A's money, that would make sense. But it is not guy A's money.

If guy A takes money from guys C - ZZZZZZ in order to give that to guy B, without setting many restrictions or even punishing guy B, and guy B spends in on crack and hookers... we blame guy B? Sure, guy B was a scumbag, but guy A was the one who took and misappropriated the capital in the first place. Not to mention the actions of guy B that led up to his needing money were actively encouraged by guy A.

Not to strain this metaphor to the breaking point, but guy A is, in theory, a representative of guys C-ZZZZZZ, and they have recourse when they're angry at his actions. More importantly, guy A IS being held accountable; there's a lot of anger at the government as well over the bank bailouts (and the attendant lack of conditional guarantees). even in the situation you're describing, of COURSE one would blame guy B (along with guy A). Coincidentally enough...that's exactly what's happening.