The Paris Criminal Court on Monday convicted French cement maker Lafarge and eight former executives of financing terrorist groups in Syria between 2013 and 2014.
The ruling marks one of the most significant corporate criminal convictions in France in recent years, raising profound legal, ethical, and geopolitical questions about the responsibilities of multinational companies operating in conflict zones.
According to the court’s judgment, Lafarge, now part of the Swiss multinational Holcim, made payments to three armed groups active in Syria, including the so-called Daesh. These payments, estimated at nearly 5.6 million euros ($6.56 million), were deemed to have directly or indirectly supported terrorist activity.
The court concluded that the funds enabled these groups to consolidate territorial control and "prepare terrorist attacks,” including those carried out in January 2015 in France.
Presiding Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez emphasized the severity of the conduct, stating that Lafarge’s financial arrangements constituted more than incidental transactions.
She described them as forming a "genuine commercial partnership" with Daesh, highlighting that the payments significantly contributed to the group’s ability to exploit Syria’s natural resources and finance both regional and international terrorist operations.
The judge further underlined that the scale and nature of the payments demonstrated "extreme seriousness,” particularly given their role in strengthening a designated terrorist organization.
Origins of case
The origins of the case date back to 2008, when Lafarge invested approximately 680 million euros in the construction of a cement plant in northern Syria's Jalabiya. The project was initially designed to expand the company’s presence in the Middle East and secure long-term industrial growth in an emerging market.
However, the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in 2011, rapidly evolving into a full-scale civil war, transformed the operational environment. As violence escalated and most foreign companies withdrew from the country, Lafarge remained.
By 2012, it had become the only major French company still operating in Syria, maintaining production at its cement plant despite increasing instability.
By mid-2014, the situation had deteriorated further and Daesh consolidated control over vast territories in Syria and Iraq. In response to the expanding threat of terrorist financing and foreign trade with such groups, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 2170 on Aug. 15, 2014, explicitly condemning any financial or commercial dealings with Daesh and affiliated organizations. This was followed by Resolution 2178 in September 2014, which reinforced international obligations to suppress the financing of terrorism through both state and private actors.
Despite this tightening international legal framework, investigators found that Lafarge’s operations continued and that agreements with armed groups were allegedly renewed to maintain the functioning of the plant.
Legal proceedings, allegations
The legal case formally began in November 2016, when 11 former Syrian employees, supported by the NGOs Sherpa and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, filed a complaint in France.
The plaintiffs accused Lafarge and its Syrian subsidiary of entering into financial arrangements with armed groups between 2012 and 2014 to keep the factory operational.
According to the investigation, the payments served multiple purposes. Approximately 3 million euros was classified as "security payments,” intended to guarantee safe passage for employees, goods, and logistical operations in areas controlled or influenced by armed groups. An additional 2 million euros was allegedly used for purchasing raw materials from suppliers connected to Daesh-controlled networks, which imposed "taxes" on commercial activity within their territories.
Investigators argued that these transactions were not incidental but were instead structured and deliberate. Payments were allegedly made through intermediaries and approved by senior executives in Paris.
Prosecutors further contended that Lafarge knowingly engaged in the purchase of materials, including oil, from entities linked to Daesh, effectively sustaining the group’s financial infrastructure.
The total financial flow under scrutiny is estimated at around 5 million euros directed toward multiple armed groups, including Ahrar al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and Daesh. Prosecutors described these actions as having been taken "with full knowledge of the facts,” characterizing them as decisions of exceptional gravity.
They requested prison sentences of up to six years for former CEO Bruno Lafont and up to five years for several other senior executives, including former Syria subsidiary directors and security managers. The prosecution also called for a 1.125-million-euro fine against Lafarge and the confiscation of tens of millions of euros in assets.
If fully upheld, the case could set a precedent as one of the first instances in France where a multinational corporation is held criminally responsible for financing terrorism.
Defense arguments, corporate justification
Lafarge has consistently denied intentionally financing terrorist organizations. Its defense is built on the argument that the company operated under extreme coercion in what it describes as an "extortion economy.”
According to this position, payments to armed groups were not voluntary acts of support but unavoidable measures intended to ensure employee safety and preserve operational continuity in a lawless environment.
Court testimony, however, has complicated this narrative. Former executives and security personnel described a structured system of negotiations with armed groups as early as 2012.
These arrangements reportedly involved intermediaries who facilitated "security payments” in exchange for safe passage along key transport routes.
Former plant director, Bruno Pescheux, acknowledged the unusual nature of these arrangements but stated that they functioned pragmatically under the circumstances. Other executives admitted that they were confronted with no viable alternatives between continuing operations under negotiation with armed groups or abandoning the site entirely.
Internal communications presented during the trial revealed awareness of the nature of the groups involved. In one 2012 email, a Lafarge official remarked that meetings with the al-Nusra Front could be acceptable "if it’s good for our business.” Such statements have been cited by prosecutors as evidence of deliberate engagement rather than passive survival.
Security officials also warned management of the escalating risks. One senior manager cautioned in mid-2014 that continued operations would effectively amount to "participating in funding the Syrian insurgency." Despite these warnings, the plant remained operational until September 2014, when it was ultimately seized by Daesh.
The defense has also referenced alleged contacts with French intelligence services, suggesting that authorities were aware of the situation. However, no evidence has been presented to indicate official approval or endorsement of the payments.
International dimensions, legal complexity
The case is further complicated by parallel legal proceedings in the United States. In 2022, Lafarge pleaded guilty to supporting terrorist organizations and agreed to pay approximately $778 million in penalties. This settlement imposes constraints on the company’s defense strategy in France, as it cannot contradict facts previously admitted in the U.S. proceedings.
While the American case was resolved through a plea agreement, the French trial has involved a comprehensive examination of both corporate and individual responsibility under criminal law. Civil parties, including victims of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, have also participated in the proceedings, although no direct causal link between Lafarge’s payments and specific attacks has been legally established.
Ongoing investigations, unresolved questions
Although the verdict represents a major milestone, the legal proceedings surrounding Lafarge are not yet fully concluded. A separate investigation into possible "complicity in crimes against humanity” remains ongoing. In January 2024, France’s Court of Cassation upheld the indictment on these additional charges, allowing further judicial examination of the company’s conduct during the Syrian conflict.
As a result, the Lafarge case continues to stand at the intersection of corporate law, international humanitarian law and counterterrorism policy. It raises enduring questions about the limits of corporate responsibility in war zones and the legal boundaries of doing business in territories controlled by armed non-state actors.