I've been looking at some of the more recent IMF loans and the Wikipedia description of the one given to Romania appears to imply no reform conditions were attached to the loan:
While in January 2009, President Traian Băsescu said that the last thing Romania would do would be to sign an agreement with the IMF, his tone softened to agree an IMF monitorization (but without any conditions put on by the IMF) and eventually, Prime Minister Emil Boc signed the new agreement in June 2009, Boc arguing that the loan will be taken exclusively by the National Bank of Romania to consolidate its reserves.
The IMF and EU agreement gave Romania a 20 billion € line of credit of which the National Bank of Romania and the Romanian government took 17.9 billion € and which should be gradually returned by 2023, giving a total average interest of 15% (2.74 billion €).
So other than a non-trivial interest rate, that suggests there were no other structural/reform conditions which the IMF usually attaches to such loans. I've also read the IMF's press release on the 2009 loan to Romania, and I see no obvious mention of conditionality either. So, is it really the case that there were no reform conditions attached? (Romania was indeed already a EU member in 2009, but then so was Greece and the IMF surely was not (and still isn't) short of demanding structural reforms in the latter country...). And if the answer is a trivial "yes" in the case of Romania, were there similar no-condition loans given by the IMF to other countries in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis? Or is Romania's case somewhat unique?