NCA’s Annual Report 2019-20: a focus on recovering the proceeds of crime and asset denial
On the 2nd of March, French-Swiss company LafargeHolcim issued a statement accepting that it had indirectly funded illegal armed groups in Syria in order to continue its operations there. This statement came in response to mounting pressure in the press, coupled with a criminal complaint made against them in November 2016 by French NGO Sherpa and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.
The complaint relates to a subsidiary of LafargeHolcim operating in Syria between 2013 and 2014. It alleges that in order to keep its cement plant working, the subsidiary used suppliers known to be paying extortion money to IS, and turned a blind eye to employees and customers being subject to extortion. Since LefargeHolcim knew that IS were involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is argued that they are financially complicit in the actions of IS. At the time of writing the criminal investigation continues.
This would not be the first time criminal charges have been filed against companies for their alleged involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity: see our blog on the recent complaint made to the International Criminal Court against companies involved in Australia’s immigration detention centres.
Lawyers and NGOs in France have been particularly active in this area over recent years:
France is not alone, other recent complaints against companies include:
While many of these complaints have been initiated as a result of civil society or media pressure, there are signs that countries are increasingly open to the notion of prosecuting companies or their directors of their own accord. For example, in February 2017, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Colombia announced its intention to charge company directors with crimes against humanity for funding paramilitary forces between 1996 and 2004. It stated that these funds “guaranteed the functioning, existence and growth of this armed group… through which they bought weapons which were later used to execute all manner of [war] crimes.”
While criminal investigations of UK companies for their involvement in alleged war crimes are by no means commonplace this does not necessarily mean that companies are protected from criminal prosecution for the most serious crimes elsewhere. Notwithstanding the difficulties of prosecuting corporates in the UK, companies would be well advised to keep abreast of developments in this area at both the international and domestic level.
For further information on Universal Jurisdiction, please read our previous blogs, available on our site:
This blog was co-authored by Sophia Kerridge, Paralegal in Criminal Litigation.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility