Lafarge convictions: a landmark moment in corporate criminal accountability

April 2026 saw the handing down of a historic verdict in corporate criminal accountability when Lafarge, a global cement manufacturer headquartered in Paris, and eight individuals, were convicted by a French Court of financing terrorism. This landmark case not only represents the first time a company has been tried and convicted in France of such an offence, but also marks a significant development in the corporate accountability landscape.
 

The facts

Global building materials manufacturer Lafarge S.A. (which merged in 2015 with Swiss conglomerate Holcim) was accused of financing, via its subsidiary, Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) S.A. (headquartered in Damascus, Syria), terrorist organisations between 2013 and 2014.

The allegations arose following the transfer of payments by Lafarge, amounting to approximately US $5.5 million, to terrorist groups (included Islamic State (IS), Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Nusrah Front (ANF)) during the Syrian civil war. The payments were made between 2013 and 2014 and were designed to maintain Lafarge’s business operations at the company's cement plant in the Jalabiyeh, Northern Syria, at a time when IS and other terrorist groups had seized large swathes of Syria. It was found that Lafarge managed these arrangements through intermediaries and disguised their role through a number of measures, including the use of non-company email addresses and invoices with false narratives, to requiring terrorist groups to remove references to “Lafarge” from any paperwork.

The Jalabiyeh Cement Plant had been bought by Lafarge in 2008 but began operating in 2010. It had cost Lafarge approximately $680 million to build. It is said that as a result of the illicit payments made between 2013 and 2014, Lafarge benefitted in over $70m in revenue.

Lafarge eventually evacuated the Jalabiyeh Cement Plant in September 2014 and IS seized the factory, profiting significantly from the cement on site.

The journey to convictions

As detailed in our earlier blogs (here and here), this French prosecution has a decade of history:

• September-November 2016: Criminal complaints filed by the French Minister of Economy and Finance, Sherpa, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Sherpa and 11 former Syrian employees.
   
• June 2017: Judicial investigation opened into the activities of Lafarge and relevant personnel which, over the next year, led to several Lafarge individuals being charged.
   
• June 2018: Lafarge S.A. charged with various offences, including financing a terrorist enterprise and complicity in crimes against humanity.
   
• November 2019: The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the indictments against the Lafarge executives and Lafarge S.A., but dismissed the charge of crimes against humanity for Lafarge S.A.
   
• September 2021: The French Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the charge of the crimes against humanity against Lafarge S.A.
   
• May 2022: The Paris Court of Appeal upheld all charges against Lafarge S.A., including crimes against humanity.
   
• 2023 – January 2024: Lafarge S.A. appealed (to the Supreme Court) the May 2022 decision of the Paris Court of Appeal to confirm all charges against the company. The basis of the appeal was the decision to uphold the charge of deliberate endangerment of the Syrian workers’ lives. This appeal was ultimately successful, with the charge dismissed, however the Supreme Court confirmed that the indictment for complicity in crimes against humanity could remain.

Following this long procedural history, on 13 April 2026 French Judge Isabelle Prévost-Desprez convicted Lafarge S.A. of an offence of terrorist financing. The Court determined that the 2013-2014 payments constituted a "genuine commercial partnership with Islamic State" and enabled terrorist organisations to gain control of the country's natural resources and allowed for the financing of attacks across the Middle East and Europe. The company was ordered to pay more than €1.125 million (the maximum fine under French law), as well as €4.57 million for non-compliance with financial sanctions.

Judge Prévost-Desprez also convicted eight individuals for their role in the financing operation, including the former Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont, former Deputy Managing Director Christian Herrault, managers at LCS and two Syrian intermediaries. Lafont was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of €225,000; Herrault to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of €225,000. Former Plant Directors, Bruno Pescheux and Frédéric Jolibois were imprisoned for five years and three years respectively. Pescheux was handed a €225,000 fine with Jolibois facing an €80,000 sanction. Intermediaries and “plant security” officers received sentences ranging from 18 months to seven years. Lafarge itself remains under investigation for complicity in crimes against humanity.

This is of course not the first corporate conviction for Lafarge arising out of their activity in Syria. They follow on from the pleas entered by Lafarge S.A. and Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) S.A. in October 2022 in a case brought by the United States Department of Justice. In that case, the companies pleaded guilty

A focus on corporate accountability

The Lafarge case demonstrates that the focus is no longer simply on private actors carrying out crimes of universal jurisdiction, but shifting towards corporate entities who may be involved in commercial activity that has a connection to such crimes. This includes assessing the potential criminal liability of businesses operating in conflict zones or with connections to alleged war criminals.

Another example of this is the Swedish case involving Lundin. The facts of the case date back to 1999, when Lundin Petroleum (later renamed Orrön Energy), is alleged to have engaged the Sudanese government and allied militia to secure territory (‘Block 5A’), enabling Lundin to extract oil. Payments made by Lundin are alleged to have been in return for the forcible displacement of over 160,000 people, of which many died. It is also alleged that the Sudanese forces committed a number of other crimes in effecting this displacement, including rape, torture and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Charges were brought in Sweden against two former Lundin executives, Ian Lundin and Alexander Schneiter, for aiding and abetting war crimes. The criminal trial started in September 2023 and April 2026 saw closing arguments from the defence. Both defendants deny the charges. The prosecution argue that the executives, in entering agreements with the Sudanese government to ensure security ovxer Block 5A, knew security was only achievable through miliary force. The prosecution has asked for sentences for Lundin and Schneiter of ten years and six years’ imprisonment respectively.

Whilst the company has not been charged as a defendant (in Sweden only natural persons can be charged with a criminal offence), the prosecution has asked for a confiscation order against Lundin in the sum of approximately EUR 117 million – representing the profit Lundin made in 2003 when the company was sold – and a fine of EUR 252,000.

Other ongoing cases and investigations concerning the potential criminal liability of private actors whose business activities engage war crimes include the French investigation into a technology company - trading at the time as Amesys. The investigation is into alleged “complicity in acts of torture” related to the sale of surveillance technology and its alleged role in facilitating human rights abuses in authoritarian regimes.

Investigative journalism is also focusing its attention on corporate supply chains and where they might lead – such as the recent OCCRP report into Aughinish Alumina, Europe’s largest refinery of alumina, and its alleged links to EU-sanctioned arms manufacturers.

Corporate Considerations

This shift towards corporate actors demonstrates a key move in reassessing who is to be held accountable for crimes of universal jurisdiction and the basis upon which such liability might arise. From corporate prosecutions (Lafarge) to senior executive liability (Lundin), the message is clear: for companies operating in high-risk jurisdictions, due diligence is key:

• Enhanced Due Diligence: Companies must implement robust systems to ensure their supply chain is transparent, intermediaries are acting lawfully, whistleblowing and risk management systems are effective and the actions of third parties are properly scrutinised.
   
• Exit Strategies: Companies must have clear protocols for ceasing operations quickly and effectively where risks grow.
   
• Board-Level Oversight: Senior executives cannot claim ignorance of operations in high-risk jurisdictions. A clear awareness of relevant operations is key. Any arguments that illicit payments were made due to coercion, rather than willful complicity, are going to be closely examined and could, as in Lafarge, be roundly rejected.

about the authors

Louise represents individuals and companies embroiled in criminal and regulatory proceedings whether in the UK or internationally. She has acted in relation to high-profile Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigations and Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) negotiations. She is a member of the firm’s ESG group. 

Sophie is a Partner with extensive experience in advising corporate and individual clients involved in a wide range of internal, criminal and regulatory investigations and public inquiries. She is a member of the firm’s ESG group.