Lafarge on Trial: Cementing Accountability

[Anna Kiefer is Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Sherpa.

Cannelle Lavite is Co-Director, Business and Human Rights at ECCHR.

Claire Tixeire is Co-Director, Institute for Legal Intervention at ECCHR.]

Starting 4 November 2025, and continuing for six weeks, a criminal court in Paris will examine whether the multinational company Lafarge and several of its former top executives should be found guilty of financing terrorism and violating EU sanctions. This comes in the wake of a scandal that surfaced in 2016 involving the company’s activities in Syria – precipitating a legal saga that has not only shaken the cement giant Lafarge, but also Swiss-based Holcim, one of the world’s largest players in construction materials, which merged with Lafarge in 2015.

This landmark case has significance on multiple levels: it challenges the scope of criminal liability – for both a parent company and its top executives – for crimes committed via a subsidiary abroad. It marks the first time a corporation in France faces charges of financing terrorism, and it sheds light on how companies contribute to atrocities in conflict zones. At its core, the case raises questions of corporate power, double standards, and the pursuit of accountability for those who enable or profit from grave human rights abuses in Syria and beyond.

According to the French investigating judges, Lafarge transferred via its subsidiary Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) more than five million euros to the Islamic State (IS), the al-Nusra Front, and Ahrar al-Sham during 2013 – 2014, in order to continue running its cement factory in northeastern Syria. 

The upcoming criminal trial represents a turning point in the nine-year-long legal saga that has seen two French Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) rulings, along with the confirmation of a groundbreaking indictment for complicity in crimes against humanity – the first ever against a corporation – for which investigations are still underway. 

The authors of this piece represent the two organizations, Sherpa and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), that filed the criminal complaint in 2016 alongside former Syrian Lafarge employees and have since acted as civil parties in the litigation.

What is at stake in this trial? What will be most contested? And why would it be a mistake to frame this case solely through the lens of countering terrorism?  

Key Claims by the Defense Against Charges of Financing Terrorism in this Case

The French Criminal code provides in article 421-2-2

“The act of financing a terrorist enterprise also constitutes an act of terrorism when it involves the provision, collection, or management of funds, assets, or any kind of property, or the offering of advice for such purposes, with the intention that these funds, assets, or property be used, or with knowledge that they are to be used, in whole or in part, for the commission of any terrorist act as defined in the present chapter – irrespective of whether such an act ultimately occurs.”

Authors’ translation

According to the investigating judges’ order for referral to trial, during 2013 – 2014, Lafarge paid at least 3,130,000 million euro to IS, the al-Nusra Front, and Ahrar al-Sham in the form of “security payments” to ensure the free movement of its employees and goods in the region. The company allegedly spent an additional 1,900,000 million euro to purchase raw materials from suppliers linked to IS. These payments were allegedly made through Syrian intermediaries – two of which will stand trial – who were hired by LCS to negotiate with armed groups identified on the ground by its security managers (also on trial). Agreements with these groups are said to have been approved by LCS executives with the consent of Lafarge’s senior management.

While Lafarge is alleged to have financed many armed groups, the investigative judges narrowed their focus to three organizations: Ahrar al-Sham, the al-Nusra Front, and the Islamic State. The latter two were listed by the United Nations as al-Qaeda affiliates as early as 2013 and are included on the European Union’s list of sanctioned organizations. The first, Ahrar al-Sham, has been categorized in a previous French court decision as a terrorist organization.

First, regarding the material element, the accused argued that it is impossible to assess the amount that effectively ended up in the hands of terrorist organizations. In response, the judges recalled that there is no minimum threshold required by law to constitute terrorism financing. Lafarge further argued that some of the payments were made to Syrian businessman Firas Tlass and not to terrorist organizations. However, the judges found that Tlass was paid to act as an intermediary and, thus, at least indirectly enabled terrorist financing. As to the purchasing of raw materials from suppliers linked to IS, the defense contended that this could not qualify as financing terrorism. The investigating judges, on the contrary, considered that the funds paid to the suppliers had been funneled into the local economy directly under the control of IS, which also imposed taxes.

On the mens rea front, the defense brought up various challenges, including the claim that LCS had been a victim of extortion, and had been compelled to provide funds to terrorist groups in order to protect its employees. The judges, however, concluded that the company had always retained autonomy: it chose to keep the factory running, when it could have shut it down at any moment. Instead, they actively sought to negotiate with armed groups to keep the factory operational.

The role of the French State and secret services in Lafarge’s decision to stay in Syria have also informed part of the defense strategy. However, the investigating judges noted that none of the defendants went so far as to argue that the French State ordered them to stay in Syria, nor was there any evidence pointing to this in the judicial inquiry, leading the judges to dismiss this line of argumentation.     

The lack of intent to finance a terrorist organization and the claim of ignorance that the funds would be used to commit terrorist acts are two additional elements of the corporation’s defense. However, as the judges recalled, a perpetrator of terrorist financing does not need to have intended that the funds be used to carry out a specific terrorist act. Rather, it is sufficient that they were aware that the funds would be used for the commission of a terrorist act, without knowing which particular act the funds might support. Ultimately, it is also legally irrelevant whether such an act was ever carried out. 

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Under article 121-2 of the French criminal code, corporate entities can be criminally liable for offenses committed on their behalf by their organs or representatives. In this case, a multinational will stand trial for crimes committed via the activities of its subsidiary abroad – a stepping stone for corporate accountability in an era of globalization.

Lafarge’s referral to trial represents an unprecedented deconstruction of (legal) assumptions and obstacles that have enabled years of impunity for multinationals’ illegal conduct. The company had indeed argued that the payments made to terrorist groups originated from its subsidiary’s accounts and not the company’s account, and that it was not involved in the decisions made by the subsidiary’s executives. When corporate actors are confronted with human rights violations in their global operations, their defense has classically revolved around two elements. The first is the so-called “corporate veil,” which relies on the concept of separate legal entities and the notion that these entities are independent from one another. The second is the assumption that when multinationals are involved in human rights violations, this is only due to individual “bad apples” acting against the global policies of the company. 

The judges’ legal reasoning in this case exposes the artificiality of the corporate veil. In the Lafarge case, it becomes clear that beyond the actions of individual executives, it was the deliberate mobilization of Lafarge’s global financial and operational resources that enabled the financing of terrorist groups – all in pursuit of safeguarding the company’s interests in Syria. According to the investigating judges, the actions examined and clearly established in the judicial inquiry were organized and carried out with the purpose of sustaining the economic activity of LCS’s sole production site. The profits from this site would have contributed to the overall profits of the group and, thus, constituted an important asset for it. Consequently, these actions are considered to have been committed for the benefit of, and therefore on behalf of, the legal entity Lafarge, through its organs or representatives. 

As noted in the referral to trial, LCS’s financial operations were largely supported by loans from its parent company, Lafarge, which owned approximately 99% of the subsidiary. In addition, the French Supreme Court found in 2021 that there was “permanent interference by the parent company in the economic and social management [of its subsidiary], leading to the total loss of autonomy of action by the latter.” LCS activities were, the investigative judges noted, “entirely integrated in the parent company’s strategy and accounting.” Furthermore, the investigating judges analyzed the hierarchical and operational links between the parent company and its subsidiary with regard to the decisions to negotiate with armed groups and finance intermediaries. While decisions were directly made by LCS executives, they were taken after consultation with and validation from the headquarters’ top executive management, including Lafarge’s CEO at the time.

Ne bis in idem, the principle prohibiting double incrimination, was also brought forward by the defense in relation to the 2022 guilty plea between the United States Department of Justice, Lafarge and LCS for conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS and Al-Nusra, which cost Lafarge 778 million dollars in fines and forfeiture. However, the ne bis in idem principle is excluded when the alleged offenses are, at least in part, committed on French territory (as consistently held by the Court of Cassation). As this is the case here, the investigating judges have therefore dismissed this argument. 

Obstacles Remain for Syrian Plaintiffs to Access Justice

More than a decade after the events, several Syrian former workers at Lafarge will come to testify at the trial. They suffered various threats to their lives and security, and multiple kidnappings as they worked in the midst of an armed conflict, while all non-Syrian staff had already been evacuated early on in the conflict to ensure their protection. 

A major setback for former employees – and more broadly for workers of multinational companies – came with the 2024 Court of Cassation’s decision to drop the charge against Lafarge for deliberate endangerment of their lives. The court adopted a narrow interpretation of the Rome I Regulation on conflict of laws for contractual obligations, concluding that French labor protections did not apply to the company’s Syrian employees. This ruling stood in contrast to the court’s 2021 ruling, which acknowledged that the parent company had “permanently interfered” in the management operations of its subsidiary, including in matters of security.

With this legal pathway for reparation now closed, the testimonies and involvement of Lafarge’s Syrian former employees have significance in the upcoming trial. What remains uncertain is whether the Court will allow them to seek damages in relation to the charge of financing terrorism. 

Conclusion

When it comes to charges of financing terrorism in the context of Syria in the 2010s, a French mother was sentenced in 2017 to two years in prison for sending 2,800 euros to her son who later died there. Here, one of France’s largest publicly traded companies allegedly transferred millions of euros, some of it directly, to the Islamic State. The disparity is striking, and it underscores why corporate accountability is so critical.

Yet while the upcoming trial is of great significance, it would be a mistake to view this case solely through the counterterrorism lens. Combating terrorism is primarily a matter of state security and its paradigm is one that can be influenced by shifting political perceptions and allegiances. In contrast, human rights law was built to stand above the shifting tides of politics. Core international crimes, including crimes against humanity, are grounded in treaties, customary law, domestic legislation and consistent jurisprudence, providing a stable legal framework designed to transcend such fluctuations.  

Accountability for international core crimes will therefore be essential to achieve a corporate accountability outcome in this affair that is both comprehensive and enduring.

Until then, the trial set to begin this fall marks a pivotal moment for addressing European corporate misconduct in relation to crimes committed in Syria and beyond.