Riza's reassignment and promotion were determined by the Ethics Committee. See this letter from Melkert to Wolfowitz:

"That the staff member will be relocated to a position beyond (potential) supervising influence by the President and therefore will withdraw from the current selection procedure for job promotion within the MENA department; b) That at the same time the potential disruption of the staff member’s career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record as confirmed by her shortlisting for the current job process and as consistent with the practice of the Bank."

Moreoever, Riza was due for a promotion based on her exemplary record at the bank, and if you'll read up on the history of how conflicts of interest are resolved there, you'll find that the promotion-and-raise course is the most typical. It's intended to keep the affected staff member from quitting due to public obloquy; also to remove her from the supervision of her boss. (The first part surely wasn't accomplished given the media coverage of this non-story, but the second part was.)

This procedure was followed by Wolfowitz. The only unprecedented aspect of the Riza case was that she wasn't married or a resident partner of the "Requestor"-- had she been, the rules would have been more firmly established.

But please explain how it's a sign of corruption to present your relationship before an insititutional ethics committee and say, "I'd like to remove myself from all further decisions regarding this employee"?  That Melkert decided Wolfowitz couldn't do that, and that it was going to be up to him to handle Riza's reassignment, is hardly the fault of Wolfowitz.

Also, all World Bank employees' income is tax exempt, which fact makes Riza's salary more than a lot of U.S. officials. So what?