“We were prepared for a long legal battle,” says D., a former Syrian employee of French cement manufacturer Lafarge who wishes to remain anonymous. But, he quickly adds, he feels “it is taking even longer than usual.”
The ongoing trial for financing terrorism is certainly helping to oil the wheels of the judicial machine. But it also reminds him of what is not being tried—and may never be. In Syria, D. worked for nearly four years at the Jalabiya plant in the northeast of the country, run by Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS), a subsidiary of the French cement company. In 2010, he was hired as a “manager” – first in the production department, then in the “control” department. But in 2013, the situation became too dangerous and difficult, so he fled to Germany and continued working remotely for the cement plant until February 2014. The plant closed its doors just a few months later in September, when the site was taken over by Islamic State.
Today, D. is in Paris. He has come to testify before the criminal court trying Lafarge until December 19 for “financing” several terrorist organizations and “violating” international financial sanctions. Eight individuals are also appearing in court for all or part of these offences. Among them are several former executives of the group—including its former CEO Bruno Lafont, as well as managers and other staff of the cement manufacturer and its subsidiary. The French courts accuse them of paying more than €5 million between 2013 and 2014 to Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nosra, and Ahrar al-Sham to maintain production at the cement plant as the war-ravaged region fell under the control of jihadist groups.
Case split in two
Lafarge is currently in court to answer only part of the allegations against it, as the most serious charges are still under investigation. The French cement manufacturer, which has since merged with Swiss group Holcim, is also being prosecuted for complicity in crimes against humanity—a charge that was formally brought in 2024, after a long legal saga. Initially part of the same judicial investigation, this charge was separated in 2023. A second trial for this charge, if confirmed, could still take years.
The issues at stake, methods of investigation and timeframes are not the same for the two charges, according to a judicial source explaining why the cases were separated. She thinks this decision was “nothing unusual”. The complicity in crimes against humanity aspect is said to be more complex than tracing financial flows. It requires “diplomatic channels”, which lengthens the process. Since the “financing” aspect was investigated more quickly, the judges preferred not to delay the entire case. Another reason given is that the two sets of charges do not fall under the same jurisdiction. The terrorism aspect could be dealt with in a criminal court, while the crimes against humanity aspect must be dealt with in a criminal court of assizes. In other words, they would have had to be tried separately – “unless the financing was considered a related offence”, which would have led to referral to a criminal court of assizes and lengthened the time it took to bring the case to trial.
HOW THE CASE BEGAN
In November 2016, 11 former Syrian employees and two NGOs – Sherpa and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) – filed a complaint for “complicity in crimes against humanity”, “financing terrorist organizations”, “deliberately endangering the lives of others” and other related offences. After years of procedural battles and several orders from the Court of Cassation, judicial procedures were tightened. Lafarge was finally put under investigation for two main crimes: “complicity in crimes against humanity” and “financing terrorism”.
Anna Kiefer, litigation and advocacy officer at the Sherpa NGO, which filed a complaint against Lafarge in 2016, points out it is the same alleged payments that are said to have both financed terrorist organizations and contributed to the commission of crimes against humanity. However, since the charges are different, the elements to be established are not the same. To prove the multinational’s complicity through “aid and assistance”, the lawyer says it is first necessary to “establish the existence of the main offence” and “prove that crimes against humanity were indeed committed”.
“The mere fact of committing an act of complicity—which may take the form of financing—while knowing that the group is committing crimes against humanity is sufficient,” says Mathieu Bagard, one of the lawyers representing former Syrian employees.
The “distinction” made by the Court of Cassation
But were the people working for the multinational company and its Syrian subsidiary aware of what was happening in the area around the Jalabiya factory? What did they know about the abuses committed by terrorist groups?
French justice has been hesitant on this issue.
In 2019, the investigating chamber initially dismissed the French cement company’s indictment for complicity in crimes against humanity, considering that the payments were intended solely to maintain production and did not reflect any desire to “associate” with terrorist group crimes.
But in September 2021, the Court of Cassation ruled that Lafarge must have had “precise knowledge” of Islamic State actions in Syria, which were “likely” to constitute crimes against humanity. The judges of France’s highest court considered that knowingly paying millions of euros to an organization “whose sole purpose is criminal” is sufficient to “amount to complicity through aid and assistance”.
This is ground breaking. In the judges’ view, wanting to ensure the continuation of business activities is a “motive”, not an “an element of intent”. Requiring the “accomplice” to adhere to the ideology, conception or execution of the crimes would amount to leaving “many acts of complicity unpunished”. It is precisely “the multiplication of such acts that enables crimes against humanity”.
The “most sensational” decision
This 2021 ruling establishes “the distinction we were waiting for”, says Claire Tixeire, co-director of the Institute for Legal Intervention at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). She even considers it to be the “most sensational decision in the entire case”, not only because it paves the way for Lafarge to be investigated for complicity in crimes against humanity but especially because it clarifies an essential point: a company can be an accomplice to an international crime without sharing the criminal intent of the principal perpetrator. By stating that the desire to preserve economic activities does not exempt the company from criminal responsibility, the Court of Cassation has sent a message to “the entire business community”, she says.
Now that the French cement manufacturer has been formally charged, investigating magistrates must determine whether Lafarge was aware of the abuses committed by the groups it allegedly financed, according to Tixeire. “That will be the central issue,” she says.
Everything interlinks
She thinks the hearings in the “financing” trial will allow “certain elements” to be brought to light that could be added to the ongoing investigation. Tixeire mentions the testimony of a DGSI agent, heard before the criminal court. “He was categorical. In his opinion, Lafarge could not have been unaware that Islamic State, if we are to mention only this group, was the most dangerous terrorist entity in the world.” She also referred to the long list of “atrocious” and “documented” crimes taking place in Iraq and Syria “at exactly the time of the events”. In addition, there are the statements by former Syrian employees who, she says, told their management about the abuses committed in the region: crucifixions, stoning, summary executions and more.
“Cheap, unimportant people who can die”
D. says “we need to move faster”, because several of his “older” colleagues who “have waited a long time” have already died “disappointed”, and also because many of those who remain “have lost hope of obtaining justice and reparation”.
This feeling is reinforced by the fact that the civil parties still do not know whether they are confirmed as parties to the ongoing trial. In 2022, the Court of Cassation ruled that the offence of financing terrorism only harmed the public interest, without causing “direct harm” to individuals. This interpretation was contested by lawyers for the civil parties at the start of the trial, but the court’s decision on the matter remains for now.
Former Syrian employees think this interpretation is “regrettable”. D.’s “great hope” is that “what we went through” will be heard. “We are not just after compensation,” he says. “We need justice. We need these people to tell us why they pushed us into the fire. Why was the risk level red for foreigners [evacuations of expatriates were organized from mid-2012, but the factory did not close until two years later], but green or orange for us?” D. says he knows the answer: “It’s because, to them, we were ‘locals’. They saw us as cheap, unimportant people who could die.”
D. also expresses his immense disappointment at the decision to drop the charges of “endangering the lives of others”, which initially targeted Lafarge [see box]. The charges were definitively dropped by the French courts, which ruled that Syrian employees could not benefit from the protections provided by French law because they were employed by LCS—even though the subsidiary was 98.7% owned by the multinational.
Only the legal entity under investigation
For the time being, only Lafarge as a legal entity is under investigation for complicity in crimes against humanity. “Ideally, all those involved should be held accountable for their actions,” says Tixeire. But she thinks that when the legal entity is prosecuted “it completely changes the game”. She believes that targeting only a few executives would serve “their narrative”, which is quick to blame “a few bad apples”, whereas the very structure of multinationals “is designed to dilute responsibility, including in cases of international crimes”.
