Crimes Against Worker Safety (Art. 316 and 317 CP)
Criminal defence of employers, directors and occupational-risk prevention officers facing the offence of endangering the life and health of workers by failing to provide the safety measures required by occupational risk prevention law.
Last updated:
What is the crime against worker safety?
The crime against the safety of workers is governed by Articles 316 and 317 of the Spanish Criminal Code, within Title XV of Book II, devoted to offences against workers' rights. It is an endangerment offence protecting the life, health and physical integrity of employees against breaches of occupational risk prevention obligations.
Article 316 CP punishes those who, in breach of occupational risk prevention rules and being legally obliged to do so, fail to provide the means necessary for workers to carry out their activity with adequate safety and hygiene measures, thereby seriously endangering their life, health or physical integrity. The conduct is essentially an omission: no accident need occur; the creation of a serious and concrete risk is enough.
Penalties under Articles 316 and 317 CP
Article 316 CP (the intentional form) punishes this conduct with imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of six to twelve months. The intentional form covers both direct intent and, according to the case law of the Supreme Court, contingent intent (dolo eventual), where the obliged party is aware of the serious risk and omits the measures while accepting its likely occurrence.
Article 317 CP provides that where the offence of the preceding article is committed through gross negligence, the penalty shall be reduced by one degree. This is the most common scenario in practice, since many breaches stem from a failure of the duty of care rather than from a conscious will to endanger workers.
This endangerment offence must be distinguished from result offences. Where the breach causes the death or injury of a worker, the conduct is usually punished as an ideal concurrence between the offence of Arts. 316/317 CP and the corresponding negligent homicide or injuries (Arts. 142 or 152 CP), applying the concurrence rules of Art. 77 CP. The final classification depends on the seriousness of the risk, the foreseeability of the result and the causal link established.
Who is liable: employer and prevention officer
The circle of potential defendants is broad and requires identifying who held the position of guarantor. Liability may fall on:
The employer and directors, as bearers of the legal duty to protect workers against occupational risks under the Occupational Risk Prevention Act. The criminal liability of natural persons is delimited through the acting on behalf of another clause (Art. 31 CP).
Supervisors, site managers and middle managers to whom the organisation of safety at the workplace had been delegated and effectively assumed.
The safety officer or coordinator and the prevention service, where their role is not limited to advice but entails a specific duty of supervision and control that has been breached. Case law clarifies that the mere status of technician does not generate automatic liability: a specific duty and its causal breach must be proven.
The delegation of duties is central to the defence: a valid delegation, endowed with real resources and powers, may shift the duty of guarantor; an apparent delegation, or one without effective capacity to act, may not.
The endangerment offence and the evidence
As an offence of serious and concrete endangerment, the prosecution must prove not merely any formal breach, but a breach of prevention rules that has generated a serious and imminent risk to personal legal interests. Many administrative breaches that would be penalised by the Labour Inspectorate do not, on their own, reach the seriousness required by the criminal offence. This boundary between the administrative and the criminal is one of the main fields of defence.
Our work
At the firm of Alonso Sala, based at Velázquez 27 (Madrid), we defend employers, directors, middle managers and prevention officers investigated for these offences. We analyse the prevention structure, the risk plans and assessments, the delegation of duties and the Labour Inspectorate report to build a strategy coordinated across the criminal, labour and civil levels. You can contact us on 91 078 65 74.
Penalties & Consequences: Crimes Against Worker Safety (Art. 316 and 317 CP)
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Intentional form (Art. 316 CP) | Imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of six to twelve months for anyone who, being obliged and in breach of prevention rules, fails to provide safety means thereby seriously endangering the life or health of workers. |
| Negligent form (Art. 317 CP) | Where the offence is committed through gross negligence, the penalty is reduced by one degree from that of Art. 316 CP. |
| Concurrence with a harmful result | If death or injury occurs, the endangerment offence is usually found in ideal concurrence (Art. 77 CP) with the negligent homicide or injuries of Arts. 142 or 152 CP. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Defense Strategy: Crimes Against Worker Safety (Art. 316 and 317 CP)
Position of guarantor and delegation
We pinpoint who held the legal duty of safety and whether a valid delegation of duties existed, with real resources and powers, capable of shifting criminal liability to another level of the organisation.
Boundary between administrative breach and crime
We distinguish purely formal or administrative breaches from the serious and concrete risk required by the criminal offence, challenging any automatic transfer of a Labour Inspectorate penalty into the criminal sphere.
Causation and attribution of the result
Where there is an accident, we examine the causal link, foreseeability and any contributing conduct of the victim or third parties to dispute attribution of the result and the concurrence rules of Art. 77 CP.
Economic Criminal Law in Spain: Tax Fraud, Money Laundering and Corporate Crimes
Economic criminal law encompasses the most severe financial penalties in the Spanish Criminal Code. Tax fraud over €120,000 (Art. 305 CP), money laundering (Art. 301 CP), and corporate crimes (Art. 290-297 CP) are complex offenses where defense requires a combination of criminal law expertise and deep accounting/financial knowledge.
Penalty Comparison: Economic Offenses
| Offense | Threshold | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Fraud (Art. 305) | >€120,000 | 1 – 5 years + fine x6 |
| Aggravated Tax Fraud | >€600,000 | 2 – 6 years |
| Money Laundering (Art. 301) | Any amount | 6 months – 6 years |
| Aggravated Laundering | Organized/financial system | Up to 9 years |
| Corporate Crime (Art. 290) | Balance sheet falsification | 1 – 3 years |
| Punishable Insolvency (Art. 259) | Fraudulent bankruptcy | 1 – 4 years |
Key Defense Strategies
Tax Regularization Defense (Art. 305.4 CP)
Pay the full tax debt before charges are formally filed and the crime is extinguished. This is the most powerful complete defense in tax fraud cases.
Challenge the €120K Threshold
The tax authority's calculation method is often contestable. Independent forensic accounting can challenge the assessed figure below the criminal threshold.
Money Laundering 'Self-laundering' Issues
Spanish courts have debated whether the primary offender can also be convicted of laundering their own proceeds. Challenge the double jeopardy implications.
Corporate Crime: Harm to Company vs. Shareholders
Art. 295 corporate crimes require actual financial harm to the company or its members. Demonstrate that any loss was speculative or absent.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.