The prosecution is set to present its closing arguments in the closely watched trial of French cement manufacturer Lafarge, accused of financing terrorism by maintaining business operations in Syria during the height of the country’s civil war.
The case, one of the most significant corporate accountability trials in France, centers on allegations that the company made payments to jihadist groups, including the Islamic State group, to keep its cement plant running until 2014.
French investigators allege that Lafarge, through its Syrian subsidiary, paid millions of euros to armed groups controlling territory around its Jalabiya cement plant in northern Syria.
Prosecutors argue that these payments, allegedly disguised as “taxes” or security arrangements, amounted to financing terrorist organizations at a time when the conflict was intensifying and extremist groups were consolidating power.
Eight former Lafarge executives are standing trial, accused of complicity in crimes including financing terrorism and endangering the lives of employees. Prosecutors contend that company leaders were aware of the nature of the groups receiving funds but chose to prioritize business continuity over ethical and legal considerations.
The payments, they argue, allowed Lafarge to continue producing cement even as violence escalated and many international firms withdrew from Syria.
During the trial, the prosecution presented internal company documents, emails, and testimony suggesting that senior management knew the risks of operating in a war zone and the identity of the armed groups involved.
Witnesses described how employees faced checkpoints manned by militants and how negotiations were allegedly conducted to ensure safe passage of raw materials and staff.
Lafarge, now part of the Swiss-based Holcim group following a 2015 merger, has acknowledged making “unacceptable” decisions but disputes the charge that it knowingly financed terrorism. The defense maintains that the payments were made under extreme circumstances to protect employees and assets, arguing that withdrawing abruptly could have placed local workers in even greater danger.
Lawyers for the former executives have emphasized the chaotic conditions of the Syrian conflict and the lack of clear alternatives at the time.
The case has drawn international attention, as it raises broader questions about the responsibilities of multinational corporations operating in conflict zones. Human rights organizations have followed the proceedings closely, arguing that the trial could set an important precedent for holding companies criminally liable for their actions during armed conflicts.
As the prosecution delivers its closing case, it is expected to underline the seriousness of the alleged offenses and the symbolic importance of the verdict. A conviction would mark a rare instance of a major multinational being found guilty in France of financing terrorism, potentially reshaping corporate conduct in high-risk regions.
The court is expected to hear closing arguments from the defense in the coming days before deliberating on its verdict, which could have far-reaching legal and ethical implications for global business operations in conflict zones.