Never before has a company been convicted, as a legal entity, for such acts. On Monday, April 13, the Paris Criminal Court convicted French cement manufacturer Lafarge for financing terrorism in Syria between 2013 and 2014. The judges found the company, which has since merged with Swiss group Holcim, guilty during the same period of violating international financial sanctions against several terrorist organizations, notably Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. Several former executives of the group, as well as intermediaries involved in the operations in Syria, were also found guilty, primarily for financing terrorism.
LAFARGE JUDGMENT
Paris Correctional Court, 13 April 2026 (in French)
This is a “historic” verdict that is “proportionate to the extreme gravity of the facts”, says Cannelle Lavite, co-director of the Business and Human Rights Program at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) which was recognized as a civil party. She says it also reflects, as the presiding judge emphasized, “the scale of the incalculable disruption to public order” caused by this financing. In her view, “the court established that Lafarge had mobilized financial, human, and political resources” to maintain a strategy centred on preserving its economic interests, leading to the approval of payments that strengthened “the operational capacity of these groups” and notably enabled “the arming, recruitment, and training of terrorists”.
“Financial arrangements”
At the heart of the case is the relentless pursuit of operations at the Jalabiya cement plant in northeast Syria. Lafarge acquired it in 2007, while it was still under construction, as part of the takeover of Egyptian company Orascom Cement. The deal opened up new markets for the multinational in a region where demand for cement was expected to grow, but it also increased the debt of the group, which anticipated a return on investment as soon as the site began operations in 2010. This outlook was derailed by the Syrian people’s uprising against Bashar al-Assad in 2011, which plunged the country into civil war.
Yet, despite the deteriorating security situation, management chose to maintain production at the cement plant, operated by Lafarge Cement Syria, a Syrian subsidiary 98.7% owned by the French group. As all French companies ceased operations in the country starting in July 2012, Lafarge evacuated its expatriate employees. The Syrian employees, left on their own, kept the Jalabiya plant running, in the heart of a region now contested by several armed groups.
To maintain production, ensure the delivery of raw materials, and guarantee the movement of employees, the company relied on intermediaries tasked with negotiating and implementing financial arrangements with three groups: Islamic State, the al-Nusra Front, and Ahrar al-Sham. In its ruling, the court found that Lafarge SA transferred nearly 5.6 million euros to these organizations, concluding that the defendants, “in pursuit of profit”, organized, approved, or facilitated a system for financing terrorism.
Defence arguments strongly rejected
As the court handed down its verdict, presiding judge Isabelle Prévost-Desprez strongly criticized the strategy of the defence, which claimed, among other things, that the defendants had been victims of “extortion”. The court found that, on the contrary, the multinational had “full decision-making autonomy” and could have ceased operations at the plant once it became aware of the armed groups’ financial demands.
By agreeing to pay, Lafarge benefited from these “arrangements”, the presiding judge stressed, citing the clearing of roads, the movement of trucks and employees via passes, the purchase of inputs for cement production, and even the neutralization of Turkish competition in the region. Its desire “to derive benefits from the relationship established, in particular, with Islamic State” demonstrates “that it was not without freedom of action”, she said.
The presiding judge added that “this hearing would not have been the same without the accounts” of the Syrian employees who came to describe to the court their daily lives marked by fear, crossing areas with snipers and checkpoints, kidnappings for ransom, and threats of dismissal if they did not report to the factory. These testimonies, according to Prévost-Desprez, dismantled “the fiction” perpetuated by the defence, “according to which operations in Syria had to be maintained while preserving the employees’ safety, in their best interest”. The proceedings “demonstrated just how cynical this seemingly humanistic and socially conscious argument actually was”, she continued, serving as a “fallacious pretext” to justify “decisions made exclusively in the financial interest of the Lafarge group”.
Maximum fine for the corporate entity
Ultimately, Lafarge was found guilty of financing a terrorist enterprise and sentenced to the maximum fine under French law of 1.125 million euros, as well as a fine of 4.57 million euros for non-compliance with international financial sanctions. This last must be paid jointly with four former executives: Bruno Lafont, Christian Hérault, Bruno Pescheux, and Frédéric Jolibois. Lafarge had already been convicted in the United States in 2022 as part of a plea agreement covering some of the same facts.
In its ruling, the court highlighted the gravity of the offences and the context in which they were committed. Continuing operations in a war zone, despite the growing strength of armed groups, led to the establishment of circumvention mechanisms that integrated these groups into the very functioning of the plant. The presiding judge also stressed that “no one could have been unaware” of the atrocities committed by Islamic State, noting in particular the genocide against the Yazidis, which began in August 2014.
These funds, the written judgment notes, also enabled the three terrorist organizations “to strengthen themselves, expand geographically, arm themselves, train fighters who committed terrible atrocities during the periods in question in Syria, and to send “hardcore” terrorists—as Christian Herrault called them in reference to Islamic State—to France and Europe.
In addition to this trial, Lafarge remains under investigation in a separate aspect of the case concerning allegations of complicity in crimes against humanity. That investigation, which is still ongoing, focuses on facts related to the cement plant’s continued operation in an area controlled by armed groups accused of seriously violating international law.
Bosses in jail
The Paris Criminal Court convicted four former executives of the group, as well as several intermediaries involved in operations in Syria.
Former Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont was sentenced to six years in prison and a fine of 225,000 euros. He was found guilty of financing terrorism and violating international sanctions, as the court found that he had approved continuation of the financing scheme. Lafont was immediately jailed following the hearing. The same applies to the former deputy chief operating officer, Christian Hérault. He was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of 225,000 euros.
Two other former executives of the Syrian subsidiary, Bruno Pescheux and Frédéric Jolibois, were found guilty of the same offences. The former was sentenced to five years in prison, without parole, and a fine of 225,000 euros, while the latter received a three-year prison sentence, two years of which were suspended with provisional enforcement, along with a fine of 80,000 euros. The sentences were handed down without a committal order, sparing the two men immediate incarceration.
Several intermediaries and “plant security” officers who operated in Syria on behalf of Lafarge were found guilty only of “financing terrorist enterprises” and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 18 months to seven years, as well as fines ranging from 20,000 to 225,000 euros. None of them were present at the hearing. Arrest warrants have now been issued for some of them.
Several defence attorneys, notably those representing Lafont and Hérault, announced their intention to appeal.
Major legal precedent
On the civil parties’ side, Lavite welcomes all the convictions. The lawyer considers the sentences “justified” by “the seriousness of the facts” and “total lack of accountability on the part of the former executives and the company”.
She says the size of the fines, in particular, sends “a very strong signal” against “the inconsistencies in the defendants’ defence”, “cover-ups and manoeuvres that were put in place to hide payments to terrorist groups”, which she predicts will have “major reputational consequences for Lafarge”.
In a joint press release, Sherpa and the ECCHR—two organizations behind the case—express regret that the 190 former Syrian employees who had sought to join the proceedings as civil parties were not recognized. The court ruled that the offence of terrorist financing falls under the public interest and cannot constitute direct harm to individuals, rendering their claim inadmissible. In this statement, the employees emphasize that “Lafarge knew” but “chose to endanger the lives of its employees in the name of profit”. “Even though we are disappointed today, after ten years, and although we have still not received compensation or recognition of our suffering, we will not give up and will continue to demand our rights and the justice we deserve,” say these employees.
The verdict nevertheless sets a major legal precedent. For the first time, a company has been found guilty, as a legal entity, of financing terrorism. The decision goes beyond the Lafarge case alone and is expected to become a benchmark for corporate criminal liability.
