Types of liability for violation of labor protection requirements

Responsibility for violation of labor protection requirements

Responsibility for violation of occupational safety and health (OHS) requirements occurs to workers and (or) employers if they violate their responsibilities related to occupational safety issues.
IMPORTANT! The employer's responsibilities regarding occupational safety are listed in Art. 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and for workers - in Art. 214 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The types of such liability are provided for in labor legislation (Article 419 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation):

• disciplinary;
• material;
• civil law;
• administrative;
• criminal

Disciplinary liability is imposed by the employer on its employees if they do not comply with the established labor safety requirements. Depending on the severity of the offense and its circumstances, the employer has the right to reprimand or reprimand the offender, and in some cases, dismiss him (Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

How to punish for a disciplinary offense, you will learn from the material “Order on disciplinary action - sample and form.”

Financial liability may arise if, as a result of an employee’s violation of labor safety requirements, direct actual damage to the company’s property is caused (Article 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The nuances of processing “material” issues in the company are in the publication “Regulations on the material responsibility of employees - sample 2019–2020”.

Civil liability may arise for an official who fails to fulfill his duties in relation to his employee, as a result of which the latter suffered moral damage. In this case, compensation for damage is paid in money in agreed amounts or in an amount determined by the court (Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

We will discuss the remaining two types of liability provided for by law for violators of occupational safety standards in the following sections.

What is a violation

Both employers and employees are required to comply with labor protection requirements. The key provisions of occupational safety are specified in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Section X “Occupational Safety and Health”). The employer's responsibilities for occupational safety are regulated by Art. 212 of the Labor Code, and what liability an employee will have for violating labor protection requirements depends on the type of violation:

• failure to comply with requirements and instructions (deviation from the rules, ignoring personal protective equipment, alcohol intoxication in the workplace, etc.);
• improper (or with violations) fulfillment of duties to ensure safe working conditions (for example, starting the production process without a medical examination).

In the table, each item is a reason for liability on the part of the employer for violation of labor protection requirements.

Code of Administrative Offenses on the amount of fines

Violators of occupational safety requirements may face penalties provided for in Art. 5.27.1 or 19.5 Code of Administrative Offences.

The amount of fines under Art. 5.27.1 Code of Administrative Offenses vary depending on the offense (there are four of them) and for organizations can reach 150,000 rubles, and for a repeated violation - up to 200,000 rubles. Suspension of activities is also possible.

Clause 23 Art. 19.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes fines for failure to comply on time with a legal order of a representative of supervisory authorities on issues of compliance with labor legislation (including on issues of compliance with labor requirements):

• 30,000–50,000 rub. for officials and individual entrepreneurs;
• 100,000–200,000 rub. for legal entities.

In addition to the specified monetary amounts, a manager or other official who committed the specified violation may also lose his position - clause 23 of Art. 19. 5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for the possibility of his disqualification for a period of one to three years.

This article provides for personal penalties in certain areas of activity: failure to comply with regulations in the field of safety of hydraulic structures, when using nuclear energy, or regulations of the fire service. For repeated punishments for similar violations, more serious fines are also provided.

ConsultantPlus has a detailed article on administrative liability for violation of labor protection requirements with an analysis of judicial practice. You will be able to read the material as soon as you sign up for a free trial access to K+.

Criminal legal qualification of arbitrary actions

Today, the issues of qualification of criminal arbitrariness seem to be one of the most difficult problems in the application of criminal legislation by judicial and investigative authorities. This circumstance causes increased interest in this topic among specialists in the field of criminal law. In recent years, a significant amount of research has been carried out on the criminal legal aspects of the crime under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. arbitrariness 1 . At the same time, cases of incorrect application of this norm in forensic investigative activities occur quite often.

Let us consider the most pressing problems associated with the application of legislation on liability for criminal arbitrariness.

Disposition Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the signs of criminal arbitrariness, has undergone significant changes compared to the norm of Art. 200 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960. If previously arbitrariness was recognized as “the exercise of one’s actual or perceived right contrary to the established management procedure,” then according to the current legislation it is “the unauthorized performance of any actions, contrary to the established law or other legal act, the legality which are disputed by an organization or a citizen, if such actions caused significant harm.”

The differences between the definitions of criminal arbitrariness in modern and previously existing legislation are obvious: “exercising the rights of a criminal in violation of order” has been replaced by “committing any actions contrary to the established order.” The modern formulation is seriously criticized by experts. So, Yu. V. Sapronov converts Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is essentially a blanket rule, which, moreover, does not have that specific branch of law with the corresponding regulatory legal acts to which this attribute refers.”

O. V. Sokolova points out that the formulation “committing any actions” has no semantic meaning and does not reveal the essence of arbitrary actions. In this regard, she proposes to remove Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the words “any” and especially emphasize the fact that the unauthorized actions of the perpetrator can be legally significant for the rights and interests of other citizens.

Objective signs of criminal arbitrariness are characterized primarily by the fact that the perpetrator encroaches on the order of management of social relations established by the state. This procedure is a set of norms and rules of behavior provided for by the legislative and other legal acts in force at the time of the commission of the crime. At the same time, Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a certain extent should be considered blanket, since in order to correctly qualify the crime, law enforcement agencies need to indicate which regulations were violated by the criminal.

In practice, in most cases, the law enforcement officer leaves this sign without attention, limiting himself only to indicating that the person’s actions are contrary to the management order, without specifying the normative act, the requirements of which were not fulfilled.

In particular, K.V. Bubon cites as an example a criminal case charging Ch. with arbitrariness. According to the circumstances of the case, the accused was a financially responsible person at a large beer production enterprise and acted as a retail seller and storekeeper. In the course of trading, he systematically appropriated part of the proceeds received, using it at his own discretion. During the audit, a shortage was identified. Ch., brought in as an accused, did not deny that he used the funds for personal interests. His actions were initially qualified under Part 2 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as misappropriation and embezzlement. However, Ch. subsequently stated that he had withdrawn part of the money in order to pay off the wage debt of the employer company to him. The accused's version of the organization's debt was fully confirmed by the case materials. Thus, Ch. committed arbitrariness in the form of appropriating the powers of the labor dispute commission, which was created at this enterprise and is competent to resolve the conflict between employees and the employer, thereby violating the management procedure established by labor legislation in the field of consideration and resolution of labor disputes.

Neglect of the considered sign of criminal arbitrariness can lead to unjustified criminal prosecution for committing actions that are not provided for by law, but do not contradict it.

The most important feature of arbitrariness should also be recognized as challenging the actions of the perpetrator by an individual or organization that has been harmed by the crime. Specialists often view arbitrariness as a dual-objective crime.

So, G.P. Novoselov Fr. M.P. Zhuravlev defines the object of arbitrariness as the normal activities of state and non-state institutions, as well as the rights and interests of citizens protected by law. O. V. Sokolova also points to the presence of an additional direct object with alternative forms, expressed in the rights and interests of a citizen or organization, in the bodily or mental integrity of the individual, in connection with this she proposes amendments to the criminal procedural legislation in order to recognize arbitrariness a crime of private-public accusation.

In general, this theoretical position is confirmed by materials from judicial and investigative practice, since in every criminal case initiated under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in addition to the state interest, the private interest of the victims, to whom significant harm was caused by the crime, was also violated. The latter is a prerequisite for criminal liability for arbitrary acts.

In the author’s opinion, the sign of contestability of criminal arbitrariness is often erroneously interpreted by law enforcement agencies. As a rule, the presence of a complaint or appeal based on arbitrary actions is considered as a “challenge” provided for in Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, no importance is attached to the temporary element of the challenge, therefore, the victim’s appeal regarding the violation of his interests by the unauthorized actions of the accused may take place after a long period of time has passed since the commission of this act. However, the structure of arbitrariness is structured in such a way that the actions of the criminal must meet all the criteria provided for in Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, at the time of their commission. Consequently, challenging the actions of the perpetrator by a citizen or organization must be carried out directly at the moment of their commission, i.e., the criminal, due to objective circumstances, is obliged to understand that the interested subject expresses disagreement with his unauthorized actions that are contrary to the order of government.

The sign of arbitrariness allows us to distinguish arbitrary actions from situations where the subject of legal relations is given the opportunity to act with some deviation from the requirements of the law.

For example, a person who, on the basis of a court decision, has the right to demand that other citizens vacate residential premises, without contacting the bailiff service, independently takes actions to forcibly evict defendants from the occupied space (a fairly common type of arbitrary action). If the citizens in respect of whom these actions are carried out do not challenge them at the time of their commission, then the act can be considered as self-defense of rights, sanctioned by civil law as one of the ways to ensure property interests. Qualification of the act under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is unacceptable in this case, since one of the mandatory signs of the objective side of this crime is missing. If, as a result, harm is caused to citizens or legal entities, then the act may be qualified under other articles of criminal law.

Another sign of criminal arbitrary actions - self-will - also causes controversy in the science and practice of applying criminal law. For example, Yu. V. Sapronov believes that any crime is arbitrary in nature, since an act committed without the will of the subject cannot be criminal by virtue of Art. 14 and 40 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, he proposes to abandon this feature of arbitrariness.

A different opinion is shared by O. V. Sokolova, who considers willfulness as a distinctive feature of this crime, characterizing the lack of the criminal’s legal right to commit actions contrary to the established management procedure, which is allowed in certain cases provided for by law, for example, in self-defense of civil law (Article 14 of the Civil Code RF). This point of view seems to the author to be closer to the truth, since the sign of arbitrariness allows us to distinguish arbitrary actions from situations when the subject of legal relations is given the opportunity to act with some deviation from the requirements of the law. Practice shows that the overwhelming number of criminal cases on facts of criminal arbitrariness arise from disputes in the field of property turnover, based on the principle of dispositiveness, which allows participants to deviate from the norms of current legislation. Therefore, consolidating the sign of self-will is necessary to emphasize the illegality of the criminal’s opposition to public relations regarding the implementation by the state of the established management order. V. A. Vladimirov and Yu. I. Lyapunov emphasize that, in relation to the composition of arbitrariness, actions that are committed without obtaining the appropriate permission from the authorities and management (for example, the judiciary, administration, etc.) are considered unauthorized.

The sign of arbitrariness of arbitrary actions in law enforcement practice is manifested as follows.

? Zamoskvoretsky Intermunicipal District Court of Moscow V. was convicted of arbitrariness using Art. 200 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. According to the materials of the criminal case, the defendant, being a depositor of funds in JSC "Tiandyi" of the concern "Tibet", in December 1994, together with other persons who were not aware of his criminal activities, arbitrarily seized a building that belonged to LLP "Rossiyanka" and JSC "Orpheus" "(also part of the Tibet organization), having expelled the employees of these enterprises and posted security, arbitrarily disposed of the property of these companies in order to repay the concern's debt to investors. V.’s actions were recognized as unauthorized due to the fact that he did not have the appropriate judicial act to foreclose on the property of the injured organizations.

The question of the possibility of committing arbitrariness through inaction seems quite important. Scientists have different opinions. Thus, M.P. Zhuravlev and Z.A. Neznamova argue that arbitrariness is expressed only in the form of actions. N.I. Vetrov and Yu.I. Lyapunov do not exclude the possibility of committing an arbitrary act through inaction. A.V. Kladkov believes that this crime can take the form of both action and inaction. For example, a person retains and does not present, including to government agencies, the disputed property, as a result of which the owner suffers significant material damage. At first glance, such a point of view directly contradicts the requirement of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which defines arbitrariness as an unauthorized action.

Significant harm caused by arbitrary actions must be real at the time the person is brought to criminal liability. At the same time, lost profits of a person whose rights and legitimate interests were violated by unauthorized actions cannot be considered as such.

At the same time, according to the author, the conclusion of Yu. V. Sapronov is justified that in fact, arbitrariness as opposition to the existing order of governance can well be carried out through inaction and non-application of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in such a situation is a shortcoming of the current criminal law.

Whereas judicial practice back in the Soviet period indicated the impossibility of committing criminal arbitrariness through inaction.

The resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court in the case of M., who failed to fulfill the obligation imposed on him by a court decision in a civil case, states that “failure by a person to comply with a court decision obliging him to perform certain actions is not a basis for bringing him to criminal liability for arbitrariness under Art. 200 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR."

In accordance with previously existing and modern criminal legislation, the composition of arbitrariness is material. Unauthorized actions contrary to the established management procedure can be criminal only if they cause significant harm. In the absence of this sign, it is permissible to bring the offender to administrative liability under Art. 19.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The question of determining the degree of significance of harm from criminal arbitrariness is one of the most controversial in criminal law science and practice. Based on the nature of the harmful consequences, property damage in the form of real damage or lost profits, physical harm in the form of beatings or harm to health, violation of the legal rights and interests of citizens (housing, labor, etc.) can be considered significant. This conclusion is based on the explanations given by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR: “When deciding whether the harm caused is significant, it is necessary to take into account the degree of negative impact of the unlawful act on the normal operation of the enterprise, organization, institution, the nature and size of the material damage suffered by them, the number injured citizens, the severity of the moral, physical or property damage caused to them.”

In all cases of bringing persons to criminal liability for arbitrariness, the law enforcement agency is obliged to assess the damage caused by criminal actions and provide evidence of its significance in relation to specific circumstances. Otherwise, qualification under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will be incomplete. An example is the following case.

? By the verdict of the Pravoberezhny District Court of Lipetsk dated May 17, 2001, N. was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to a fine in favor of Nauchno-Proizvodnaya CJSC in the amount of 24,499 rubles. N. was found guilty of arbitrariness committed under the following circumstances.

The defendant, working as the general director of the Lipetsk Seeds branch of NPF Russian Seeds CJSC, acting without any authority from the appropriate body - the meeting of shareholders of the CJSC, in violation of the Federal Law "On Joint Stock Companies"

, Regulations on the Lipetsk Seeds branch issued an order to provide itself with a loan in the amount of 15 thousand rubles. Based on this order, he received a loan under an agreement dated February 23, 1996, and on January 27, 1997, without the permission of the meeting of shareholders and the board of NPF Russian Seeds CJSC, he ordered its repayment, after which the specified amount was written off as losses of previous years.

On 10/02/97, in a similar way, contrary to the established procedure, N. paid his wife, the chief expert of the branch, the cost of a trip to the sanatorium at the expense of the organization in the amount of 6 thousand rubles, and then wrote them off as losses.

In addition, N., also without authority from the meeting of shareholders of NPF Russian Seeds CJSC, issued loans to employees of the branch F. (6 thousand rubles) and Kh. (7 thousand rubles).

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court left the verdict unchanged.

The Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in protest raised the issue of canceling the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the judicial panel of the regional court and terminating the case due to the lack of corpus delicti in N.’s actions under Part 1 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The presence in the law of the wording “committing any actions” leads to the fact that law enforcement agencies often consider any actions that go beyond the limits of the law, including cases of self-defense of the rights of business entities, as arbitrariness.

On August 23, 2002, the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court satisfied the protest on the following grounds. Part 1 art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for arbitrariness, that is, unauthorized, contrary to the procedure established by law or other regulatory legal act, the commission of any actions, the legality of which is disputed by an organization or a citizen, if such actions caused them significant harm.

It follows from this that one of the necessary elements of this crime is the infliction of significant harm.

As established by the court, significant harm from N.’s actions was expressed in the fact that as a result of issuing loans to himself, as well as employees F. and Kh., paying for a trip to his wife (also an employee of a branch) of NPF “Russian Seeds” CJSC, damage was caused in the amount of 34 thousand . rub.; in addition, as a result of the repayment of loans, the business reputation of this company was damaged.

However, the court did not provide evidence in its verdict to support this conclusion. On the contrary, as witness V. (first vice-president of this company) testified, the amount of 34 thousand rubles. for CJSC NPF "Russian Seeds" is small, but the business reputation of this company suffered from circumstances unrelated to these actions.

Under such conditions, the court verdict was overturned, and the criminal case against N. was terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti.

Significant harm caused by arbitrary actions must be real at the time the person is brought to criminal responsibility. At the same time, lost profits of a person whose rights and legitimate interests were violated by unauthorized actions cannot be considered as such. These conclusions are confirmed by materials from investigative practice.

? The Department of Internal Affairs initiated a criminal case against S. on the grounds of a crime under Part 1 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The reason for this was the following circumstances. S., who held the position of head of a government agency, entered into a number of transactions with a commercial organization regarding the economic use of a land plot. According to the investigator, these actions caused significant harm to state interests due to the non-receipt of funds to the budget for the use of the land plot in the amount of over 2 million rubles.

In canceling the decision to initiate a criminal case, the prosecutor pointed out, among other circumstances, that under significant harm in Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to real material damage caused to the interested party. In this regard, lost budget profits are not significant damage and must be recovered through civil proceedings.

Analyzing judicial investigative practice, it can be argued that the signs of significant harm are not defined in the law. This situation creates difficulties in law enforcement activities. The failure of using this term in relation to the composition of criminal arbitrariness is obvious.

Firstly, arbitrariness does not always involve causing any harm.

Secondly, if arbitrariness is associated with the infliction of certain damage provided for by criminal law, then what was done forms a set of crimes.

At the same time, the vague formulation of the sign of “substantial harm” may well be clarified by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which, taking into account judicial and investigative practice, would determine an approximate range of circumstances allowing arbitrariness to be considered causing significant harm.

According to the author, arbitrariness committed with the use of violence or the threat of its use is an act that causes significant harm.

Violent arbitrariness refers to crimes with two objects, the first of which is life, health, bodily integrity of the person (or a combination thereof), and the second is other social relations, an attack on which is committed through violence. Violent actions that are not aimed at depriving the victim of life or causing serious harm to his health and that do not entail consequences in the form of bodily harm or death are fully covered by the concept of violence as an element of the relevant crime. Therefore, two-object violent arbitrariness is qualified as a single act if the degree of intensity of violence does not exceed that contained in the criminal law norm. At the same time, the degree of public danger of violent arbitrariness is much higher than violence and arbitrariness taken separately.

In addition, the following consequences may be considered significant harm:

— impossibility of a citizen or organization using property for its intended purpose;

— the need for the victim to incur additional expenses to restore the right violated as a result of arbitrary actions (for example, repair work, etc.);

— causing material damage to the injured person;

— suspension by an organization of normal activities due to the arbitrariness of a criminal.

An optional feature of the objective side of arbitrariness is the method of committing this crime, namely the use of violence (Part 2 of Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Physical violence is considered in science as a socially dangerous unlawful influence on the body of another person, committed against his will (at the same time, violence used according to the will of the victim, as, for example, in euthanasia, can also be unlawful and socially dangerous). This effect can be exerted both on the outer coverings of the human body and on its internal organs.

This qualifying feature of arbitrariness was absent in Soviet legislation, and in cases where the exercise of actual or perceived rights was accompanied by the use of violence, the crime was qualified according to other norms of criminal law. Comparing the punishments established by Part 2 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation providing for liability for crimes against life and health, it should be recognized that in this case we mean violence that is not associated with causing serious harm to health to the victim, but covers beatings, light and moderate harm to health, as well as single blows, pushing, holding clothes, restricting freedom of movement by tying, etc. To violence as an attack on freedom, bodily integrity and personal health in Part 2 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation equates the threat of its use, causing harm to an additional object - the mental integrity of a person. The inclusion of a threat among the qualified types of arbitrariness is fully consistent with the essence of this crime, since it indicates the element of coercion of the victim to any action, inaction or undergoing unauthorized behavior of the subject of the crime inherent in arbitrariness.

? An example of the implementation of arbitrary actions with the use of violence is the case of Yu. and A. being accused of committing a number of crimes, including those provided for in Part 2 of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, considered by the Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow. According to the case materials, the defendants demanded that the victim R. pay the debt incurred as a result of a traffic accident in the amount of 40 thousand US dollars, although according to the calculation, the cost of repairing their car was 19,188 US dollars. During the presentation of demands for reimbursement of repair costs, the accused and other persons not identified by the investigation struck the victim several blows and threatened to kill him and his relatives. Subsequently, the criminals kept R. in someone else’s apartment in Moscow for about five days, demanding payment of the debt, and for this purpose they brought him several times to friends and relatives to borrow money. Later, the criminals forced R. to enter into a deal to obtain a loan secured by an apartment belonging to his stepfather.

The subjective side of criminal arbitrariness is characterized by intent, i.e. the criminal consciously commits unauthorized actions contrary to the established order, knowing that they are disputed by a citizen or organization, and desires the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences in the form of causing significant harm. It cannot be ruled out that arbitrariness is committed with indirect intent, in which a person does not want to, but consciously allows the criminal consequences of his act to occur.

At the same time, it is necessary to have evidence confirming the criminal’s intention to commit actions that contradict the procedure for managing public relations established by law or other legal act.

The lack of intent on the part of a person to commit arbitrary actions means the absence of elements of the type of crime in question. An example is the following criminal case initiated by the prosecutor's office regarding the destruction of property that is federal property assigned to a government agency.

According to the case materials, the facility, owned by a state institution with the right of operational management, was, by decision of the authorized bodies, taken out for reconstruction due to significant deterioration of the building, the operation of which had become socially dangerous. The reconstruction project involved replacing the building's floors while preserving its load-bearing structures. During the work, the contractor and the customer found that the implementation of the original reconstruction project was impossible due to the fact that the load-bearing supports were unsuitable for replacing floors. In this regard, it was decided to completely dismantle the structure, although changes to the design documentation were not made in the prescribed manner. Considering that the demolition actions were carried out in violation of the established procedure for conducting construction work, law enforcement agencies opened a criminal case.

Terminating the criminal case due to the lack of corpus delicti, the investigator pointed out, among other things, that the officials who made the decision to carry out dismantling work did not have the intention of destroying federal property, and their actions were determined by the need to quickly restore the facility, which is at the stage of reconstruction.

Thus, taking into account the experience of judicial and investigative practice in cases of arbitrariness, a number of shortcomings of the disposition of Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, among which the main thing is the blurring of objective and subjective signs of this crime. The use of the term “committing any actions” leads to the fact that law enforcement agencies often consider as arbitrariness any actions that go beyond the current rules of law and do not directly fall under another crime, including cases of self-defense of the rights of business entities or the implementation of them legitimate interests without harming the interests of other citizens and organizations.

Having summarized the proposals of leading researchers on the qualifications of criminal arbitrariness, the author believes that it would be optimal to return to the previous interpretation of arbitrariness with its adaptation to the realities of modern law enforcement practice.

1 See, for example: Sapronov Yu. V. Criminal liability for arbitrariness: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sci. M., 2002. P. 19; Sokolova O. V. Arbitrariness: criminal legal characteristics: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sci. Ivanovo, 2001. P.11 2 Sapronov Yu. V. Decree. op. P. 75. 3 Sokolova O. V. Decree. op. P. 13. 4 Bubon K.V. The relationship between theft and arbitrariness in the case of unlawful conversion by an employee into his own ownership of the property of an enterprise // Legal World. 2000. No. 2. P. 64. 5 Criminal law. General part / Ed. Doctor of Law science prof. I. Ya. Kozachenko, Doctor of Law. science prof. Z. A. Neznamova. M., 1997. P. 705. 6 Russian criminal law. Special part / Ed. M. P. Zhuravleva, S. I. Nikulina. M., 1998. P. 424. 7 Sokolova O. V. Decree. op. P.14. 8 Sapronov Yu. V. Decree. op. P. 15. 9 Sokolova O. V. Decree. op. P. 103. 10 Vladimirov V. A., Lyapunov Yu. I. Crimes against the order of management. M., 1969. P. 39. 11 Resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated 07/02/98 // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1999. No. 5. P.22. 12 See: Criminal law. Special part / Ed. Doctor of Law science prof. I. Ya. Kozachenko, Doctor of Law. science prof. Z. A. Neznamova, Ph.D. legal Assoc. Sc. G. P. Novoselova. M., 1997. P. 105; Russian criminal law. Special part / Ed. M. P. Zhuravleva, S. I. Nikulina. M., 1998. P. 424; Criminal law. Special part / Ed. Doctor of Law science prof. N.I. Vetrova, Doctor of Law. science prof. Yu. I. Lyapunova. M., 1998. P. 705; Criminal law of the Russian Federation. Special part / Ed. prof. B.V. Zdravomyslova. M., 1999. P. 377 13 Criminal law of the Russian Federation. Special part / Ed. prof. B.V. Zdravomyslova. M., 1999. P. 378. 14 Sapronov Yu. V. Decree. op. P. 15. 15 Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1967. No. 5. P. 15. 16 See: Collection of decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the RSFSR on criminal cases. M., 1997. P. 334. 17 Resolution of the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated August 23, 2002 // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 2003. No. 6. P. 17. 18 See: Gaukhman L. D. Violence as a means of committing a crime. M., 1974. P. 3. 19 Resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated July 19, 2001 // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 2003. No. 5.

The original is here

Criminal liability for violation of labor safety requirements

The consequences of violations of occupational safety requirements may result in the most serious of the types of liability indicated in the first section—criminal.

IMPORTANT! Criminal penalties for violation of labor requirements are provided for in Art. 143 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

This article provides for only one material punishment for persons who are entrusted with obligations to comply with them: a fine of up to 400,000 rubles. or in the amount of the convicted person’s income for a period of up to 18 months. It occurs as a result of violations of occupational safety rules, which result in serious harm to the employee’s health.

With such consequences for the worker’s ability to work and health, not only financial, but also other equally serious forms of punishment are possible. They may include:

• compulsory work (from 180 to 240 hours);
• correctional labor (up to 2 years);
• forced labor (up to 1 year);
• imprisonment (up to 1 year) with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions (or without it).

If a person’s death is caused by negligence due to violation of safety requirements, the terms of criminal liability increase:

• forced labor (up to 4 years);
• imprisonment (up to 4 years) with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for up to 3 years (or without it).

If the number of victims is two or more, the penalties are as follows:

• forced labor (up to 5 years);
• imprisonment (up to 5 years) with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for up to 3 years (or without it).

Results

Violation of occupational safety requirements may entail various types of liability: disciplinary, administrative and other (including criminal). The penalties for violations in the field of occupational safety increase when repeated violations are detected.

Sources:

• Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
• Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation;
• Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

You can find more complete information on the topic in ConsultantPlus. Free trial access to the system for 2 days.