Accidents at work and corporate criminal liability: the importance of the OMM.

With regard to accident prevention regulations, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the employer must check that the subject subject to supervisory tasks complies with the provisions of the law and those imparted to him. It follows that, if in the performance of the work activity a practice contrary to the law is established and which may involve dangers for the workers, in the event of an employee injury, the conduct of the employer who has failed to fulfill training and information duties of the worker and who has omitted any form of surveillance and timely intervention regarding the incorrect practice established, integrates the crime of negligent injury aggravated by the violation of Legislative Decree 81/2008.
The United Sections have specified that the concepts of interest and advantage provided for by Legislative Decree 231/2001 to attribute criminal responsibility to the company, in culpable event crimes, must necessarily refer to the conduct and not to the crime. This is the only interpretation that responds to the will of the legislator that can be inferred from the inclusion of the crimes of manslaughter and negligent injury as the only predicate offenses of the entity's liability: clearly they do not respond to the interest of the company, or do not provide it with an advantage. , even if the company could have made a profit, for example, by saving costs to comply with the prevention legislation, the violation of which caused the accident.
In culpable event crimes, the finalism of the conduct is compatible with the non-voluntary nature of the harmful event, provided that it is ensured that the conduct that caused the injuries or the accident was determined by choices that correspond to the interests of the entity or was aimed at obtaining an advantage.
There is an advantage for the entity when the natural person, acting on behalf of the entity, even if he does not want the death or injury of the worker to occur, has systematically violated the prevention rules and has therefore implemented a company policy that is inattentive to safety at work, allowing a reduction in costs with consequent maximization of profit.