Paris, November 6, 2025 – In a development that has reignited scrutiny over one of France's most high-profile corporate scandals, the Paris Criminal Court has postponed the trial of cement multinational LafargeHolcim – now operating as Holcim – and eight of its former executives on charges of financing terrorism. The adjournment, announced on Wednesday, November 5, pushes the proceedings to November 18, with hearings slated to resume and extend until December 19. This delay stems from identified irregularities in the referral order for a key defendant, prompting the court to refer the matter back to the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor's Office (PNAT) for rectification.
The case centers on allegations that Lafarge's Syrian operations between 2011 and 2015 involved paying millions of euros to armed groups, including the Islamic State (ISIS, also known as Daesh), to maintain its Jalal cement plant amid the Syrian civil war. The defendants include Bruno Pescheux, the former director of Lafarge's Syrian subsidiary from 2008 to 2014, whose referral documents were flagged for procedural flaws. Other accused individuals comprise former CEO Bruno Lafont, CFO Gerald Cordonnier, and various regional executives. Lafarge itself faces corporate liability for allegedly directing these payments, which prosecutors claim violated EU embargoes prohibiting financial dealings with terrorist organizations.
This postponement marks yet another chapter in a saga that has entangled French corporate giants, intelligence agencies, and human rights advocates for over eight years. The trial, originally set to begin in earnest this week, was anticipated to delve into explosive evidence of how a Fortune 500 company navigated Syria's chaos by allegedly greasing the palms of jihadists. Court sources indicate the irregularities involve technical aspects of the PNAT's indictment, such as incomplete documentation on Pescheux's role, ensuring the case's integrity before proceeding. "The court prioritizes procedural fairness to uphold the gravity of these accusations," a judicial spokesperson told reporters outside the Palais de Justice, though no further details on the specific flaws were disclosed pending PNAT review.
The Lafarge affair first erupted into public view in 2016, when investigative outlet Le Monde revealed internal documents suggesting the company funneled up to €13 million ($14.4 million) to intermediaries linked to ISIS and other militants. These payments, prosecutors argue, were not mere "protection fees" but systematic financing that enabled ISIS to fortify positions, including using Lafarge-supplied cement for bunkers, tunnels, and checkpoints in northern Syria. The Jalal plant, Lafarge's crown jewel in the region since its 2010 opening, became a flashpoint as rebel advances threatened supply lines, prompting executives to authorize cash handovers via Turkish border crossings.
A pivotal moment came on September 7, 2021, when Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency published a trove of leaked documents that provided irrefutable proof of Lafarge's ties to ISIS, with the apparent complicity of French intelligence. These files, obtained from confidential sources, detailed how Lafarge routinely briefed France's Directorate General for External Security (DGSE) on its dealings with armed groups, including direct communications about ISIS intermediaries. Shockingly, the documents revealed that DGSE and other state bodies never cautioned the company against these actions, despite awareness of their illegality under international law. One memo, dated 2014, explicitly notes Lafarge's query to intelligence handlers about the risks of "financing terrorism," met with silence or tacit approval. Anadolu's exposé drew global condemnation, amplifying calls for accountability and highlighting France's dual role as both a counter-terrorism leader and enabler of corporate malfeasance.
The legal odyssey began in earnest in June 2017, when French authorities launched a probe under the direction of PNAT. By the following year, Lafarge's then-CEO Bruno Lafont and several top lieutenants were indicted for terrorism financing, a charge carrying up to 10 years in prison and hefty fines. The company, rebranded as LafargeHolcim in 2015 amid the scandal's early whispers, saw its shares plummet and faced U.S. regulatory scrutiny, culminating in a $778 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2022 for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – though notably, that deal sidestepped terrorism charges.
Tensions escalated in 2018 when prosecutors initially pursued complicity in crimes against humanity against the firm, citing ISIS's use of Lafarge materials in atrocities like mass executions and enslavement. However, this grave accusation was dismissed in 2019 by investigating judges, who deemed the link too attenuated. Undeterred, civil parties – including the Paris-based NGO Sherpa, which combats corporate impunity, and the Berlin-headquartered European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), focused on transitional justice – appealed the decision. Their persistence paid off on September 7, 2021, coinciding with Anadolu's revelations, when France's Court of Cassation, the nation's highest judicial body, ruled that Lafarge could indeed face complicity charges. The court argued that corporate facilitation of ISIS logistics constituted indirect aid to war crimes, setting a precedent for holding multinationals liable in conflict zones.
Building on this momentum, the Paris Court of Appeals in May 2022 greenlit a formal investigation into complicity in crimes against humanity, explicitly referencing Anadolu's documented evidence of Lafarge's ISIS payments. This phase saw forensic accounting unearth ledgers showing €5.8 million disbursed in 2013-2014 alone, often routed through shadowy fixers demanding "transit taxes" from the Turkish side. Lafarge's defense has long maintained these were coerced survival tactics in a war zone, not willful terrorism support, with the company cooperating fully since 2017 and implementing global compliance reforms.
The plot thickened in January 2024, when the Court of Cassation rebuffed Lafarge's bid to quash the complicity charges, affirming the probe's viability. This paved the way for October 2024, when three Paris-based investigating magistrates ruled that the Lafarge group and four executives – including Lafont and Pescheux – must stand trial not only for terrorism financing but also for breaching EU sanctions under Regulation 881/2002, which prohibits any economic engagement with designated terror entities like ISIS. The indictment specifies violations from 2011-2015, during which Lafarge allegedly prioritized profits over ethics, exporting 75,000 tons of cement annually from Jalal despite escalating jihadist control.
As the trial looms, stakeholders are bracing for revelations that could reshape corporate liability in fragile states. Human rights groups like Sherpa and ECCHR hail the proceedings as a "milestone for victims," arguing they expose systemic failures in France's oversight of its firms abroad. "Lafarge didn't act in a vacuum; French intelligence's inaction implicates the state," ECCHR's legal director, Sarah Morris, stated in a recent briefing. Conversely, Holcim – which spun off Lafarge's French assets in 2021 – insists the episode predates its current governance and vows a vigorous defense, potentially invoking classified DGSE files to argue entrapment.
Broader implications ripple through Europe's anti-terror framework. The case underscores vulnerabilities in supply chain due diligence, especially post-2015 Paris attacks that heightened ISIS scrutiny. EU lawmakers are eyeing amendments to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, inspired by Lafarge, to mandate conflict-zone risk assessments. Economically, it spotlights Syria's reconstruction quandary: with Lafarge's plant shuttered since 2016, rebuilding efforts stall amid sanctions and distrust.
Hearings from November 18 will unfold over five weeks, featuring witness testimonies from Syrian refugees, ex-employees, and DGSE officers under seal. Legal experts predict a mixed verdict – convictions on financing likely, but complicity harder to prove without direct atrocity links. Whatever the outcome, the Lafarge trial cements (pun intended) France's reckoning with its corporate shadows in the war on terror.
