• Prosecutors seek prison terms of 18 months to 8 years for defendants, including four former executives
• Defendants deny responsibility for payments to terrorist organizations

PARIS / ISTANBUL

The reasons why French cement giant Lafarge continued operating in areas controlled by various terrorist organizations during Syria’s civil war remain unclear, despite weeks of testimony in a landmark trial in Paris.

Lafarge is accused of financing the terrorist organization Daesh (ISIS) during the Syrian civil war in 2013–2014.

Documents published by Anadolu in 2021 showed that payments made by Lafarge to ISIS were allegedly carried out with the knowledge of French intelligence services.

Anadolu compiled key issues raised during the historic trial.

Background into the Lafarge case

The trial followed a complaint filed in 2016 by the international anti-corruption NGO Sherpa, the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, and 11 former Syrian employees of Lafarge. The complaint accused Lafarge of “financing terrorism” and “complicity in crimes against humanity.”

In June 2017, prosecutors opened an investigation into several senior executives, including former Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont, on charges of “financing a terrorist organization.”

After an eight-year investigation, a six-week trial was held in the Paris Criminal Court between Nov 4. and Dec. 19.

Lafarge and eight individuals, including four former executives, were charged with financing terrorist groups, including ISIS during the Syrian civil war, as well as maintaining contact with French intelligence.

A central figure in the case, Syrian national Firas Tlass — accused of acting as an intermediary between Lafarge and terrorist organizations — did not attend any of the hearings.

Alleged payments, intelligence contacts

The main accusation against the company is that payments, under the guise of "security payments," were made to terrorist organizations through Tlass to allow company employees to pass through checkpoints controlled by these groups in the region.

During the trial, former company executives and lawyers acknowledged that Lafarge paid what they described as "protection money" to terrorist organizations and remained in contact with French intelligence during the process in order to maintain its presence in the region.

Lafarge’s defense argued that its Syrian cement plant remained open to protect local jobs rather than for financial gain. This argument failed to convince either the court or the civil parties.

Former Syrian employees testified that their lives were repeatedly endangered while passing through terrorist-controlled checkpoints between their homes and the factory. Some said colleagues were kidnapped by armed groups.

Former CEO Bruno Lafont denied knowledge of the repeated payments.

"I never suspected any payments to terrorist organizations," he told the court.

However, Christian Herrault, Lafarge’s former deputy director of operations, testified that Lafont was informed of negotiations with the organizations.

"I told him that the negotiations were taking place," Herrault said in a response.

Herrault explained that terrorist organizations in the region were extorting "protection money" from Lafarge, and that these payments had become routine rather than temporary.

Relations between the company and French intelligence

Herrault's lawyer, Solange Doumic, said evidence showed numerous meetings held between Lafarge's former head of security, Jean-Claude Veillard, and French intelligence officers during that period.

"Christian Herrault never said France was responsible, he said 'the (French intelligence) units were responsible,'" said Doumic in the final hearing defending her client.

Frederic Jolibois, who headed Lafarge Cement Syria between 2014 and 2016, said the French Foreign Intelligence Agency (DGSE) contacted him directly “to recruit former employees as informants.”

However, the French intelligence agency official, whose name was not revealed, argued that no one in their unit had any contact with Lafarge.

"DGSE did not request intelligence from Lafarge employees," he underlined.

Christophe Gomart, the former director of France's Military Intelligence Unit (DRM) admitted to having ties with Veillard, but said he was unaware of the company's payments to terrorist organizations.

According to Gomart, Veillard submitted monthly reports to DRM. He also assessed that Lafarge provided a service to France by transmitting information during the Syrian civil war.

Veillard, stated that he was unaware of Lafarge's payments to terrorist organizations until the summer of 2014, when he reported this to intelligence.

Veillard emphasized that he provided a “gold mine" of information to French intelligence agencies of his own free will, not at the company's instruction.

Prosecution seeks 18 months to eight years prison terms

On Dec.16, France’s National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office requested prison sentences ranging from 18 months to eight years for the defendants.

Prosecutors also sought fines of €4,000 ($4,695) to €225,000 ($264,000) for the eight defendants in addition to partial asset confiscation and bans on commercial activity for few.

Prosecutors also demanded a €1.125 million ($1.32 million) fine for the company, along with a €4.57 million ($5.36 Million) customs penalty for violating EU embargoes prohibiting any financial or commercial relations with terrorist organizations.

Despite weeks of legal proceedings, it remains unclear why Lafarge persistently operated in areas controlled by various terrorist groups during the Syrian civil war.

The verdict in the “historic trial,” presided over by Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez, will be announced on April 13, 2026.

'Sending a strong message to companies is important'

Sherpa member Anna Kiefer told Anadolu that during the trial, the defendants refused to accept responsibility for payments made to organizations to keep the cement factory in Syria operating.

She said testimony from former Syrian employees, particularly their accounts of checkpoint dangers, was among the most significant moments of the trial.

"Sending a strong message to companies is important," she said, drawing attention to the heavy sentences sought by prosecutors.

Kiefer pointed out the importance of giving companies the message that they can be held accountable for their activities abroad.