On the Subject of a Crime Under article 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Relevance. An analysis of law enforcement practice and criminal law theory regarding the interpretation of the characteristics of the subject of the crime under Art. 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation shows that there are problems of attributing to it persons who are not entrusted with the obligation to organize or ensure compliance, as well as observe safety rules when conducting high-risk work (improper subject). On the examples of investigative and judicial practice, the main difficulties of qualification of violations of safety rules in the conduct of construction or other work that prevent the detection of perpetrators are considered. The misqualification of the act by the non-subjects of the said act entails a violation of the principles of guilt and justice, which requires the development of explanations on the criminal legal assessment of such cases.
The purpose of the study is to clarify theoretical ideas about the subject of violation of safety rules during construction or other work.
Objective: study of the provisions of investigative and judicial practice, guiding explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; identification of problems of qualification by subject; Formulation of proposals for their resolution.
Methodology. In the process of working on the study, both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction) and methods of legal science (formal legal, system-structural and others) were used.
The results of the study consist in the development of the definition and characteristics of the subject of the crime under Art. 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, its classification by groups is given. It makes it possible to achieve uniform enforcement by establishing the exact signs of the perpetrator. Independently for the law enforcement officer, conclusions and proposals are formulated on the qualification of violations of safety rules during construction or other work.
Conclusion. The study makes it possible to claim that a safety violation was committed during construction or other work only by a special entity obliged to comply with the relevant safety rules, or to organize or ensure their observance by other persons.

1. Kurs ugolovnogo prava. Osobennaya chast' [Criminal law course. The special part]; ed. by G. N. Borzenkova i V. S. Komissarova. Moscow, IKD "Zercalo-M" Publ., 2002. Vol. 4.

2. Brilliantov A. V., Dolzhenkov G. D., Zhevlakov E. N., eds. Kommentarij k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii (postatejnyj) [Commentary to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (article-by-article]); ed. by A. V. Brilliantov. 2th ed. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2016.

3. Gracheva Yu. V., Ermakova L. D., eds. Kommentarij k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii [Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]; ed. by A. I. Rarog. 3th ed. Moscow, TK Velbi, Prospekt Publ., 2005.

4. Zinchenko E. N. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za narusheniya pravil bezopasnosti gornih rabot [Criminal liability for violations of mining safety rules]. Kiev, Vyshaya shkola Publ., 1979. 146 p.

5. Lapshin V. F. Opredelenie sub"ekta v otdelnih sostavah prestuplenii, narushayuschih pravila professionalnoi deyatelnosti [The definition of a subject in certain compositions of crimes that violate the rules of professional activity]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii = Library of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2017, no. 4 (22), рр. 123–128.

6. Makashvili V. G. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za neostorojnost [Criminal liability for carelessness]. Moscow, Gosurizdat Publ., 1957. 211 p.

7. Bavsun M. B., Beleckij K. A. Obektivnoe vmenenie v ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za narushenie pravil bezopasnosti pri vedenii rabot ili okazanii uslug (st. st. 216, 238 UK RF) [Objective imputation of criminal liability for violation of safety rules during work or services (Article 216, 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii = Library of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2017, no. 4 (22), рр. 84–90.

8. Selivanovsky D. O. Obschaya harakteristika sub"ekta prestupleniya v sfere obschestvennoi bezopasnosti pri narushenii specialnih pravil [General description of the subject of a crime in the field of public safety in case of violation of special rules]. Pravo i praktika = Law and practice, 2019, no 2, рр. 100–106.

9. Kaufman M. A. Problemi ugolovno-pravovoi kvalifikacii prestuplenii, svyazannih s narusheniem specialnih pravil [Problems of criminal classification of crimes related to violation of special rules]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii = Library of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2017, no. 4 (22), рр. 108–116.

10. Bavsun M. V., Nikolaev K. D., Ragozina I. G. Problemi sub"ektivnogo vmeneniya v hode realizacii ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za narushenie pravil vedeniya gornih, stroitelnih ili inih vidov rabot [Problems of subjective imputation during the implementation of criminal liability for violation of the rules for mining, construction or other types of work]. Sibirskoe yuridicheskoe obozrenie = Siberian legal review, 2015, no. 1 (26), рр. 39–44.

11. Prohorov L. A., Lopashenko N. A., Bytko Yu. I., eds. Ugolovnoe pravo Rossijskoj Federacii. Obshchaya chast' [Criminal law of the Russian Federation. The general part]; ed. by R. R. Galiakbarova. Saratov, Saratov gos. akad. prava, Sarat. vyssh. shk. MVD RF, 1997.

12. Bavsun M. V. Celesoobraznost' v ugolovnom prave. Avtoref. diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Expediency in criminal law. Cand. legal sci. abstract diss.]. Omsk, 2002. 22 р.

13. Grinberg M. S. Ugolovnoe pravo. Izbrannie trudi [Criminal law. Selected works]; ed. by M. S. Fokin. Omsk, 2012. 695 р.

14. Grinberg M. S. Sub"ekt prestupleniya i sub"ektivnyi kriterii neostorojnosti (voprosi specialnoi vmenyaemosti) [The subject of the crime and the subjective criterion of negligence (issues of special sanity)]. Pravovedenie = Law, 1986, no. 3, pp. 63–64.

15. Miheev R. I., Korobeev A. I. Problemi "specialnoi vmenyaemosti" i granici ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti [Problems of "special sanity" and the boundaries of criminal responsibility]. Voprosi borbi s prestupnostyu = Issues of combating crime, 1983, no. 39, pp. 35–43.

16. Luneev V. V. Sub"ektivnoe vmenenie [Subjective imputation]. Moscow, Spark Publ., 2000. 71 р.

17. Naumov A. V. Praktika primeneniya Ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi: kommentarii sudebnoi praktiki i doktrinalnoe tolkovanie [Practice of applying the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: commentary on judicial practice and doctrinal interpretation]; ed. by G. M. Reznik. Moscow, Volters Clover Publ., 2005. 926 р.

18. Bezborodov D. A. O nekotorih osobennostyah primeneniya ugolovnogo zakona v sluchae narusheniya pravil bezopasnosti pri vedenii stroitelnih rabot [On some features of the application of the criminal law in case of violation of safety rules during construction work]. Kriminalist = Criminality, 2014, no. 2 (15), рр. 17–21.

19. Grigoreva M. A. Kriminalisticheskaya harakteristika sub"ekta narusheniya pravil bezopasnosti pri vedenii stroitelnih rabot [Forensic characteristics of the subject of violation of safety rules during construction work]. Kriminalist = Criminality, 2012, no. 1 (10), pp. 93–99.

20. Ulezko I. S. Lichnost' prestupnika, sovershivshego prestuplenie, predusmotrennoe st. 216 UK RF [The identity of the criminal who committed the crime under Art. 216 of the Criminal Code]. Nauchnii vestnik Omskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Scientific bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2014, no. 1 (10), pp. 63–67.

21. Muhortova M. V. Prestupleniya, svyazannie s narusheniem specialnih pravil: priroda i osobennosti elementov sostava. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Crimes related to the violation of special rules: nature and features of the elements of the composition. Cand. legal sci. dis.]. Moscow, 2016. 260 р.

22. Avetisyan S. S. Nekotorye voprosy kvalifikacii souchastiya v prestupleniyah s nenadlezhaschim specialnym sub"ektom [Some issues of qualification of complicity in crimes with an improper special subject]. Zakon i pravo = Law and law, 2004, no. 1, рр. 48–49.

23. Ulezko I. S. Otvetstvennost' za narushenie pravil bezopasnosti pri vedenii gornih, stroitel'nyh ili inyh rabot (st. 216 UK RF): ugolovno-pravovoi i kriminologicheskii aspekty. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Responsibility for violation of safety rules during mining, construction or other work (Article 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): criminal legal and criminological aspects. Cand. legal sci. dis.]. Omsk, 2015. 192 р.

24. Nikitochkina M. V. Osnovnye prichiny i usloviya, sposobstvuyuschie narusheniyam pravil bezopasnosti pri vedenii stroitelnih rabot [The main reasons and conditions contributing to violations of safety rules during construction work]. Biznes v zakone = Business in law, 2013, no. 3, pp. 114–117.