Djoko also questioned how the Transportation Ministry could monitor and ensure all app-based ojek drivers and passengers complied with the health protocols. “On a practical level, who is going to monitor whether the health protocols are being followed by the drivers and passengers? How will the temperatures of drivers and passengers be checked?” he said. “On a practical level, this regulation is hard to monitor.”Public policy observer Agus Pambagio also highlighted the inconsistencies in the regulations, and argued that permitting ojek drivers to carry passengers would undermine the effectiveness of the large-scale social restrictions. “COVID-19 will continue to spread if passengers are allowed to be transported using two-wheel vehicles, both for commercial and personal purposes. Thus, I beg the Transportation Ministry to revoke or revise ministerial regulation No.18/2020, as soon as possible,” said Agus. Tulus Abadi, the chairman of the Indonesia Consumers Foundation (YLKI), also called on the government to scrap or revise the regulation on the grounds that it did not take into account the safety and security of customers during the pandemic. Responding to the criticism and confusion, the Transportation Ministry held an online press conference on Sunday. Spokesperson Adita Irawaty said the ministry maintained the point stated in the regulation that motorcycles could still be used to transport passengers, both for personal or commercial reasons, so long as health protocols were followed. “However, we will monitor the situation in the field and may evaluate and make changes to the regulation,” said Adita. Ride-hailing service providers such as Gojek and Grab disabled their ojek services on Friday in Jakarta, the first day of PSBB implementation in the capital. Gojek chief of corporate affairs Nila Marita said the company welcomed the Transportation Ministry regulation and is waiting for the regulation to come into effect to make adjustments. “The issuance of the regulation will help people to travel and do [certain] activities that are still allowed under the PSBB terms. On the other hand, it can also help our driver partners to maintain their income to support their families,” said Nila on Monday. Gojek has provided its driver partners in Greater Jakarta and other cities with health equipment packages.Grab Indonesia’s head of public affairs Tri Sukma Anreianno said that company was making preparations to ensure its driver partners were ready to comply with the health protocols stipulated in the Transportation Ministry regulation once it was implemented.“We are still waiting for the regulation to be officially implemented. On behalf of our driver partners, we want to thank the government for listening to our input and our drivers’ input regarding the regulation,” he said.Topics : “According to Health Ministerial Regulation No.9/2020 on PSBB guidelines, app-based ojek drivers can only transport goods, not passengers,” said Djoko Setijowarno, a transportation observer from the Indonesia Transportation Society (MTI) on Sunday. The Transportation Ministry regulation also contradicts Jakarta Gubernatorial Regulation No.33/2020 on PSBB status, which permits app-based ojek to transport goods only, he added. Incoherent regulations have left law enforcement officers, transportation operators and the public confused about whether ojek drivers are still permitted to transport passengers during the two-week PSBB period in Jakarta, which started on April 10. PSBB status will be enforced in Jakarta’s satellite cities of Bogor, Depok and Bekasi in West Java beginning April 15. The government’s guidelines on transportation controls during the implementation of large-scale social restrictions (PSBB) to contain COVID-19 have sparked criticism for being ambiguous and clashing with other regulations, leaving many confused.On April 9, the Transportation Ministry issued ministerial regulation No.18/2020 on transportation controls to slow the spread of COVID-19. Among other things, it allows app-based ojek (motorcycle taxi) drivers to serve passengers, so long as they comply with health protocols, which include wearing masks and gloves, disinfecting vehicles before and after use and not driving when not feeling well.Civil groups and politicians were quick to lambast the regulation, signed by acting Transportation Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, as it clashes with Health Minister Terawan Agus Putranto’s regulation on PSBB guidelines, meaning enforcement will be challenging.
Learn More & Register This previous post highlighted a whistleblower’s attempt (referred to as John Doe) to force the SEC to speed its award decision making process in connection with the $519 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement against Teva Pharmaceutical in late 2016. (See here for the prior post).Recently, the SEC filed this response brief stating that the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) is reviewing Doe’s application, but a preliminary determination has not yet been issued. Using words such as complex, rigorous, time consuming and labor intensive, the SEC argues that making a determination on Doe’s claim is not a simple task particularly given that the SEC “must balance its desire to process award claims within a reasonable period with the need to devote resources to other important Commission responsibilities.”In pertinent part, the response brief states:“Doe argues that the Commission has unduly delayed adjudicating his whistleblower award application and asks for an order directing the Commission to issue a preliminary determination regarding his claim within 60 days and a final order within six months. Doe’s Petition is predicated primarily upon his assertion that adjudicating his claim is a “simple task” that requires little more than “a conversation” between SEC claim reviewers and investigative staff and review of a “confined record entirely within the agency’s knowledge.” Doe claims there is “no reason to believe that [his] claim for a whistleblower award is substantially more complex” than “simple cases with one whistleblower” that the SEC resolved more quickly.Doe greatly misapprehends the work, effort, and time involved in reviewing whistleblower claims, including his. Doe overlooks the substantial complexities involved in adjudicating claims regarding the Teva matter because, among other things, there are six claimants in this matter (not only Doe as he apparently presumes) and the case involves parallel SEC and DOJ cases, requiring information gathering from the DOJ and other authorities. And Doe ignores that the SEC is processing a voluminous number of other whistleblower applications that require the attention of the Commission in addition to his claim.”Regarding the other whistleblower claims in connection with the Teva FCPA matter, the SEC states:“Doe suggests that he is the only claimant for NoCA 2017-5 and that the Commission need only assess the information he provided regarding the Teva investigations to reach a determination on his application. Doe is incorrect. There are six claimants whose claims must be assessed to determine their absolute and relative entitlements, if any, to an award.Doe’s claims. Doe submitted 700+ pages in support of his application, and asserts that the “record establishes that the SEC and DOJ acted on Petitioner’s tip and used the information supplied to successfully resolve their enforcement actions against Teva.” Teva paid nearly $520 million to resolve FCPA claims relating to improper payments in Russia, Ukraine, and Mexico, while Doe’s tips focused on payments in Argentina that were not encompassed in the Commission’s settlement with Teva. Doe also apparently presumes that the SEC staff to whom he spoke in 2011 “eventually transferred the case to the SEC’s Miami office,” which handled the Teva investigation. But Doe is not privy to SEC internal actions, other tips that the Commission may have received or the degree to which those tips may have led to the Commission’s investigation and/or prosecution of Teva. Finally, the fact that a whistleblower provides useful assistance at some point during the course of an investigation does not necessarily mean that he provided “original information” that “led to the successful enforcement” action, and therefore may be eligible for an award.Other ClaimantsThere are five other claimants who believe that they are entitled to whistleblower awards because of the testimony and documents they provided to the SEC, DOJ, and/or other authorities. While the merits of any claimant’s application are beyond the scope of the Petition, the bases for their claims are very briefly described to provide a sense of the competing claims that OWB reviewers must evaluate.Claimant 2 Claimant 2 contends that he or she provided the information that led the SEC to open its investigation. (This claim directly contradicts Doe’s claim and the relative merits of Claimant 2’s assertions must be assessed.) Claimant 2 claims that he or she met repeatedly with the SEC and DOJ to provide testimony and documents that were central to the charges against Teva. Claimant 2’s counsel, like Doe’s counsel, filed a detailed whistleblower application with extensive documentation purportedly buttressing his or her entitlement to an award.Claimants 3 and 4 Claimants 3 and 4 submitted a joint application. They claim that they provided multiple tips to the SEC, DOJ, and local authorities concerning improper payments in Romania. They claim that the information and documents they provided led to law enforcement inquiries and press reports about these payments. They contend that the inquiry in Romania, at least in part, led to Teva’s willingness to pay such a large monetary sanction. Their counsel, like Doe’s counsel, filed a detailed whistleblower application with extensive documentation purportedly buttressing their entitlement to an award.Claimant 5 Claimant 5 alleges that he or she provided extensive information and documents showing misconduct by Teva, including misconduct in Argentina. Therefore, to the extent information concerning misconduct in Argentina is relevant to the ultimate recovery, the Commission must weigh the contributions of Doe and Claimant 5. Claimant 5 claims that he or she met with SEC and DOJ investigators on multiple occasions and his or her application includes detailed documentation of the assistance he or she purportedly provided to the authorities.Claimant 6 Claimant 6 contends that he or she reported various improper sales practices to the SEC, including information about Argentina, requiring an analysis of competing claims of at least three claimants (Doe and Claimants 5 and 6). Claimant 6 contends that he or she met with, and provided documents to, the SEC and DOJ to assist in their investigations. Claimant 6’s award application highlights the various documents that he or she purportedly provided to authorities in support of their investigations.”Regardless of the merits of Doe’s claim (or that of the other claimants) the SEC’s response brief makes for an interesting read regarding the process of assessing of a whistleblower claim. FCPA Institute – Boston (Oct. 3-4) A unique two-day learning experience ideal for a diverse group of professionals seeking to elevate their FCPA knowledge and practical skills through active learning. Learn more, spend less. CLE credit is available.