Sciences Po Paris
It was the final week of the Lafarge trial. The public benches in the courtroom remained full. The first day of week six marked the closing phase of the proceedings. It started with the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (PNAT) final requisitions, during which the alleged offences were set out and the requested penalties for each defendant were presented. The first charge against Lafarge and the individual defendants is financing of terrorism and the second concerns the customs offence of violating international financial sanctions.
The prosecution accused Lafarge and 8 individuals of financing three terrorist groups in Syria – Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and Daesh – during a time in which these organizations were committing serious crimes, including executions, which were openly known. The prosecutor explained that the offence of financing terrorism does not require the funds to be allocated to a specific terrorist operation and it may be committed either directly or indirectly. The motive of financing is irrelevant, and adherence to a jihadist or extremist ideology is not a required element of the offence.
The funds transferred by Lafarge and the individual accused contributed to maintaining the operational capabilities of Daesh. “One can easily imagine what 5 million euros represented in Syria at the time: the purchase of around 4,000 Kalashnikov rifles, or the payment of salaries for approximately 3,000 to 3,600 fighters for an entire year,” the prosecutor told the court. They emphasized that “to spread its poison, terrorism does not necessarily require large amounts of money. The Paris attacks [in 2015], for example, were carried out with a budget of only 108,000 euros.”
4,694,696 euros: an “unprecedented and vertiginous” level
This case, heard by an experienced presiding judge, forms part of the long-standing expertise developed by the 16th Chamber of Paris Criminal Court in terrorism cases since 2015, as shown in a study, Terror on Trial, to be published in March 2026. All terrorism-related cases are centralized in Paris: offenses of up to 10 years imprisonment are heard before the 16th chamber, and its judges have been able to build continuous judicial expertise. Recent data published by the tribunal highlights the large scale of terrorism-related cases:
Although the French Criminal Code has continuously evolved to include more and more criminal offences adapted to the changing modes of international terrorism – such as new offences concerning apology for terrorism or financial support of terrorism and recruitment –, almost all prosecutions involve the long-standing offence of “association of wrongdoing in relation to a terrorist enterprise”, known by its acronym in French AMT. In April 2016, in the aftermath of the 2015 terrorist attacks, there was a radical change in the prosecution policy. From the perspective of the authorities, the existing ceiling of up to ten years’ imprisonment for joining a jihadist terrorist group did not adequately match the gravity of the behavior. As a result, it was decided to prosecute AMT as a felony, with penalties of up to twenty or thirty years’ imprisonment, and the cases were transferred to the Assize court.
Terrorism-financing cases are relatively rare, with only a limited number of convictions each year: 13 in 2025 and 21 in 2024. By way of comparison, recent convictions typically involved only a few thousand euros per defendant, and even the largest cases handled by the French National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office rarely exceeded a few hundred thousand euros, considered exceptional.
The sums involved in the Lafarge case go far beyond anything previously seen: 4,694,696 euros in total. “They are unprecedented and vertiginous, particularly as they reflect a systemic approach adopted by Lafarge, which came to treat terrorist organizations as ordinary business partners,” said the Prosecutor.
The U.S. 2022 plea bargain
In 2022 Lafarge pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal procedure that took place in the U.S., in Brooklyn’s federal court. A cooperation between the French investigating judges and the US prosecution authorities was established. In the U.S. Lafarge admitted key facts that also underpin the French proceedings. In a 2022 press conference the U.S. Assistant Attorney General stated: “The defendants routed nearly six million dollars in illicit payments to two of the world’s most notorious terrorist organizations – ISIS and al-Nusrah Front in Syria – at a time those groups were brutalizing innocent civilians in Syria and actively plotting to harm Americans. There is simply no justification for a multi-national corporation authorizing payments to designated terrorist organizations.”
As part of the plea agreement, Lafarge agreed not to make any public statements contradicting its acceptance of responsibility, and undertook not to dispute the established facts in any judicial proceedings, including those before foreign courts. The company acknowledged having supported ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra Front and agreed to pay the U.S. government a total of $778 million, of which $687 million in forfeiture and $90.78 million in criminal fines. The agreement also imposed mandatory reporting obligations and monitoring to prevent any recurrence of such practices. Finally, the plea agreement explicitly stated that Holcim, a Swiss cement company that merged with Lafarge in 2015, had no knowledge of that conduct.
A range of penalties
The prosecutor’s demands heard this week in Paris stand in sharp contrast to the U.S. proceedings. In France, individuals face up to ten years’ imprisonment and a €225,000 fine for financing terrorism, while corporate entities are liable to fines of up to €1,125,000, together with ancillary penalties including dissolution or prohibitions on business activities.
The Prosecutor sought differentiated penalties reflecting the respective roles of the accused:
- For Firas Tlass, who was allegedly omnipresent in the financial arrangements and absent from the proceedings, the prosecutor requested eight years’ imprisonment (with an arrest warrant) and €225,000 fine.
- For Bruno Lafont, former Lafarge CEO, who stood at the top of the pyramid that allegedly validated the conduct: a six-year prison sentence with a deferred committal warrant, the maximum fine of €225,000, and the confiscation of €2,475,050. The prosecutor also requested a ban on managing a commercial company.
- For Bruno Pescheux and Christian Herrault, respectively director of Lafarge subsidiary in Syria and deputy CEO of Lafarge, the alleged decision makers, five years’ immediate imprisonment was requested, without possibility of adjustment, and €225,000 fine on top of a ban from commercial and industrial activities. Assets confiscated: €320,533 and €476,000 from Herrault, and €182,100 from Pescheux.
Lower sentences were sought for other defendants, including:
- Jacob Waerness, one of the two security managers, who allegedly acted as an operational executor. Although he left the company in September 2013 – before payments to ISIS were fully implemented – he is prosecuted for playing a significant role in setting up the system. The prosecutor requested eighteen months’ imprisonment, subject to sentence adjustment, and a €20,000 fine.
- Frédéric Jolibois, another former director of Syria’s subsidiary, remained in his position for only a few weeks and was the only executive to express concerns about the system in place. The prosecutor requested a three-year suspended sentence, with one year to be served under electronic monitoring, and a €80,000 fine.
- Armo Taleb, the intermediary, was subject of a prosecutorial request for three years’ imprisonment and a €60,000 fine, along with the issuance of an arrest warrant.
- Ahmed Ibrahim Al Jaloudi, a alleged key operative in the scheme from September 2013 to September 2014, faced a request for a two-year prison sentence, subject to possible adjustment, and a €4,000 fine.
- Lafarge, as a corporate entity, faced prosecutorial requests for the statutory maximum fine of €1,125,000, the confiscation of €30 million in assets, and an order to cover the full costs of the proceedings.
A convenient narrative
Perhaps reflecting a sense of imbalance, U.S. authorities indicated that they would transfer part of the money to France. As reported in 2024 by The New York Times, the U.S. Department of Justice planned to eventually send about $200 million to France, under federal rules allowing the Attorney General to share forfeited assets with foreign governments that assisted in the investigation. To our knowledge, this transfer has never taken place.
The French trial pursued priorities different from those of the American proceedings. Rather than resolving the case through an agreement negotiated confidentially, France conducted a public hearing in which the evidence was examined in full. The accused were heard directly, and civil parties were permitted – pending a ruling on their standing – to provide testimony and context. Still, questions remain regarding the role of the State. The prosecutor appeared to follow the narrative of Jean-Claude Veillard, a former security director at Lafarge, according to which he knew nothing about the payments to the terrorists’ groups and therefore could say nothing to the French intelligence services, a situation that allegedly persisted until the end of August 2014. Yet, if this were indeed the case, why were the email exchanges between him and the intelligence services, requested during the investigation, not declassified? This narrative appears particularly convenient for Jean-Claude Veillard – the only suspect who was not indicted – and for the State. On these matters, the trial did not provide any additional clarification.
As part of the Capstone Course in International Law in Action, Professor Sharon Weill and eleven students at Sciences Po Paris, in partnership with Justice Info, are dedicated to weekly coverage of the Lafarge trial, conducting an ethnography of the proceedings. The members of this student group are Sofia Ackerman, Maria Araos Florez, Toscane Barraqué-Ciucci, Laïa Berthomieu, Emilia Ferrigno, Dominika Kapalova, Garret Lyne, Lou-Anne Magnin, Ines Peignien, Laura Alves Das Neves, and Lydia Jebakumar.
