A significant number of traffic accidents and cases in Mongolia can be attributed to damaged road infrastructure, inadequate signage, and poor road markings. In many cases, Mongolians have had to travel for years on roads that were never officially approved by the State Commission due to incomplete or substandard construction, during which time countless lives have been lost or affected. Yet, the responsible authorities have failed to take meaningful action.
In some cases, simply installing a few speed bumps is reported as a major achievement in reducing accidents and violations—an approach that grossly underestimates the scale of the problem.
A clear example is the road stretching from the Gachuurt junction to the Nalaikh-Choir junction, which serves as a key exit from Ulaanbaatar heading east. This section of road was built with 36 million USD in concessional loans from the People’s Republic of China, with “Sinohydro Corporation” acting as the main contractor. Although the road was opened to traffic in November 2019, it has still not been officially accepted by the State Commission, even after five to six years.
During the investigation of a fatal traffic accident that occurred on this road, B.Jargalduuren, a Specialist from the Capital Road Development Office, testified as a witness. He stated that, “A pedestrian overpass was originally included in the design and planning for the area where the accident took place. However, due to a financial disagreement with the contractor, the overpass was never built. Instead, based on a request from the governor of Bayanzurkh District’s 11th khoroo, pedestrian crosswalks were installed in five locations.”
In other words, although an overpass was originally planned, the design and budget were altered, and only horizontal and vertical markings for pedestrian crossings were put in place instead. Had the overpass been constructed as intended, the risk of pedestrians being involved in traffic accidents—and suffering serious injuries or fatalities—would have been significantly reduced.
Unfortunately, this situation highlights a broader issue: organizations responsible for road construction and infrastructure often fail to perform their duties properly and neglect legal oversight. As a result, public safety continues to be compromised.
Law enforcement agencies have attempted to hold such companies accountable. However, due to gaps and shortcomings in the legal framework, very few have ever faced criminal liability. A recent case related to this very issue was heard by the criminal appellate court of the capital city.
FAILURE TO MARK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CITED AS BASIS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES
The Capital’s Road Development Office, the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department, and Citizen, Ts.Erdenegerel, have been named as defendants in a criminal investigation concerning a violation of road traffic safety and operational standards.
The case stems from a serious traffic accident that occurred on July 27, 2022, at around 5:00 p.m., on a secondary lane of the road leading from Sansar Tunnel to the East Four Intersections in Bayanzurkh District’s third khoroo. A seven-year-old boy, referred to as “B”, was struck by a car and sustained serious injuries. As a result, the Driver, Ts.Erdenegerel, was charged under Subsections 27.10-2.3 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to causing serious bodily harm by violating traffic safety laws and administrative regulations issued in accordance with them.
In addition, both the Capital Road Development Office and the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department were charged under Subsections 27.9-2 of the Criminal Code. This provision concerns committing a criminal offense on behalf of and in the interest of a legal entity by violating safety regulations related to the use and maintenance of roads and infrastructure, resulting in serious harm to a person’s health.
According to Resolution A/248 issued by the Mayor of Ulaanbaatar on February 23, 2022, the Road Development Office was assigned responsibility for supervising the repair and maintenance work of both main and secondary city roads, while the actual work was to be carried out by the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department. However, the investigation determined that the latter failed to fulfill its legal and regulatory obligations, directly contributing to the child being injured in the accident.
Under the Law on Autoroads, entities responsible for roads are mandated to ensure the safe use and operational readiness of road infrastructure. These responsibilities include consistent maintenance and repair, to be carried out by licensed public or private legal entities. The law defines a road management entity as an organization authorized—by contract with the client—to regularly perform such work to ensure traffic safety and operational readiness. These organizations are fully responsible for ensuring uninterrupted usability and safety of the roads.
In this particular case, a contract was in place assigning the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department to carry out road marking and signage work on the section where the accident occurred. However, the accident happened before the scheduled completion of the work.
Agency Representative Ya.Myagmardorj testified that their organization had signed a service contract with the Ulaanbaatar City Council to carry out road markings and signage between March 1 and August 30, 2022, based on a pre-approved schedule. The agency claims it completed the work on time and officially handed it over to the Road Development Office on September 15, 2022. He added, “The accident occurred on July 27, 2022. The pedestrian crossing markings at the accident site were already faded at the time. The investigation claims we failed to do our job and have named us as defendants on those grounds.”
‘MUST COMPLY WITH OFFICIAL STANDARDS’
The legal representative of the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department has stated that the organization should not bear criminal liability in this case. However, Technical Expert A.Enkhbold, a senior specialist from the Secretariat of the National Road Traffic Safety Council who participated in the case as an expert witness, emphasized the following: “Pedestrian crossings must be marked with signage that complies with established standards. Evidence presented in this case shows that there was no standard-compliant pedestrian crossing sign installed at the accident site. This absence negatively affects a road user’s ability to receive, process, and appropriately respond to critical information.”
The senior specialist then said, “Signs intended for drivers must be placed at eye level, in accordance with standards, so that they can react in time—typically by reducing speed. Without such signage, a driver may be unable to fulfill their legal obligations under traffic regulations. In this case, the absence of a vertical pedestrian crossing sign and the fact that the painted crosswalk markings were extremely faded meant that the driver had no realistic way to ensure safety. Therefore, all road signs and markings must be installed in the right place and at the right time, as required by national standards.”
Further expert testimony was provided by D.Dulamragchaa, Senior State Inspector for Road Control and Supervision at the Capital City Development Department of City Standards. D.Dulamragchaa cited legal obligations under Mongolia’s Law on Autoroads, “According to Subsection 23.1 of the Law on Roads, road maintenance organizations must consistently carry out maintenance and minor repairs to ensure operational readiness and traffic safety. These responsibilities fall on licensed legal entities, whether publicly or privately owned. In this case, the responsible organization is the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department, a government-owned enterprise, which operates under contract with the Ulaanbaatar City Council.”
“Additionally, the Subsections 1.12 of Article 4 of the law defines a ‘road maintenance entity’ as a legal entity that has entered into a contract with a client to carry out regular maintenance and ensure operational readiness and traffic safety. Specifically, the Subsection 3.1 of Article 23 obliges these entities to ensure the continuous operational readiness and full safety of the roads. In Ulaanbaatar City, the responsibility for the upkeep and safety of road infrastructure—including road markings and signage—rests with this agency,” said the senior state inspector.
D.Dulamragchaa further explained that the department had specifically committed to installing signage and markings on both sides of the secondary road near the Sansar Tunnel in Bayanzurkh District. However, the evidence presented in court clearly showed that no vertical pedestrian crossing signs were installed at the accident site, and the horizontal road markings had faded to the point of being nearly invisible—failing to meet safety and legal standards.
REPRESENTATIVES OF ROAD AUTHORITIES ACQUITTED
On May 19, the District Criminal Courts for Bayanzurkh, Sukhbaatar, and Chingeltei districts reviewed the case and acquitted T.Chingis and Ya.Myagmardorj, the legal representatives appointed by the Capital Road Development Office and the Ulaanbaatar Road Repair and Maintenance Department.
The court ruled that there was insufficient basis to conclude that they had failed to fulfill or enforce their legal obligations regarding the safety and maintenance of road infrastructure on behalf of their respective legal entities.
According to Subsection 9.1 of the General Part of Criminal Code, “Where the Special Part of this law provides for criminal liability of a legal entity, such liability arises only if the elements of the offense are committed by an authorized officer who makes decisions solely or jointly, or who acts (or fails to act) in the interest of the legal entity.”
“A legal entity may be held criminally liable if an authorized official, acting on behalf of and in the interest of the legal entity, commits a criminal act by giving instructions, authorizing others to commit the offense, or failing to carry out duties prescribed by law.”
In this case, the individuals appointed by their respective agencies to participate in the legal proceedings were road safety specialists—not executives with decision-making authority or representatives authorized to act in the interest of the organization as a whole. Therefore, concluding that they committed a criminal offense on behalf of the legal entity was legally unfounded.
As such, the court determined that these individuals could not be held criminally responsible, and the legal entities themselves could also not be held liable in this instance. Consequently, both representatives were acquitted. However, Citizen Ts.Erdenegerel—who was the driver involved in the case—was sentenced to eight months of movement restriction (a form of non-custodial sentence limiting one’s freedom of movement). The appellate court of the Capital City Criminal Court upheld this verdict.
Although the Criminal Code includes provisions for holding legal entities criminally liable—a progressive step in legal reform—the implementation of this provision has been lacking. This case is a prime example of that gap. A policy research report on challenges in holding legal entities criminally liable highlights that, “Since the adoption of this legal provision, very few cases have actually been reviewed by the courts. This is largely due to a lack of experience and understanding among legal professionals.”
In other words, as demonstrated in this case, investigators and prosecutors may have failed to correctly identify the actual decision-makers responsible for the offense, thereby allowing the legal entity to avoid liability—a loophole in practice, if not in law.
