FRANCE 24 coverage by journalist Charlottes Hughes frames the case within Syria-related terrorism financing allegations.

French investigations began in 2017 following media revelations and complaints from the Economy Ministry and NGOs Sherpa, ECCHR, and former employees seeking justice for terrorism financing.

Lafarge already pled guilty in the United States in 2022 to related conduct, underscoring parallel outcomes in another jurisdiction.

U.S. authorities described a revenue-sharing arrangement with IS; Lafont has publicly called the inquiry biased.

Lafarge, now part of Holcim, goes on trial in France for allegedly funding terrorism and violating sanctions by paying IS and other jihadist groups to keep its Jalabiya cement plant operating in northern Syria during 2013–2014.

The case raises questions about multinational responsibility in conflict zones, with Sherpa viewing the trial as a historic accountability moment amid ongoing investigations into complicity in crimes against humanity in Syria and Iraq.

The proceedings could lead to further actions, as the investigation into complicity in crimes against humanity continues and a second trial remains possible.

More than 240 civil parties, including former Syrian employees, are participating to recount experiences of checkpoints, kidnappings, and threats during the period.

The trial is expected to last about six weeks, running from early November to mid-December 2025, and concerns liability of the company and its former executives.

The company emphasizes that the actions happened long ago and that it is cooperating with authorities.

Key defendants include former CEO, directors, plant security managers, and intermediaries focused on the Jalabiya site in northern Syria.

The parties are Lafarge, its former executives, and the militant groups involved, with the timeline centered on alleged payments.

The reporting frames the case as a clash between multinational corporate interests and human rights and employee safety concerns.

Legal advocates from ECCHR and Sherpa discuss the implications for multinational accountability in conflict zones.

Some full details are behind a subscription, limiting access to the complete story.

The case is contextualized within a broader pattern of French and international companies facing challenges operating in Syria during the conflict.

Defense argues the U.S. plea violated presumption of innocence and seeks to distinguish French proceedings, while questions about French intelligence involvement at Jalabiya are raised.

Defendants include Lafarge, former CEO Bruno Lafont, five former staff members, and two Syrian intermediaries; one intermediary faces an international arrest warrant and is expected to be absent.

Lafarge evacuated expatriates in 2014 but kept local staff as IS seized the factory in September 2014, with intermediaries allegedly helping obtain materials and move trucks and workers.

This is presented as an investigative, court-facing narrative with controversial financial arrangements described as infamous for sustaining an operation in a conflict zone.

Civil parties, including Sherpa, see the trial as a historic opportunity to examine corporate accountability, with related investigations still underway.

Premium content nature of the reporting indicates restricted access to the full dossier.

Legal proceedings are ongoing and could have broader implications for Lafarge and similar multinationals.

The Jalabiya plant, acquired in 2008, operated under pressure from armed groups, illustrating the complex responsibilities for multinationals in war zones.

The article notes the investigation is not closed and further proceedings could follow despite this trial.

Lafarge says the actions occurred over a decade ago, breached the code of conduct, and the implicated executives are no longer with the company; the firm is cooperating with the judicial process.

The investigation into Lafarge’s payments was sparked by a French journalist and brought to broader attention by FRANCE 24.

Charges allege financing terrorism through payments to militant groups, with the Jalabiya plant at the center of the case.

Former CEO Bruno Lafont denies knowledge of the payments and argues the U.S. plea should not define the case; the defense also seeks clarity on state complicity and potential French intelligence involvement.

A criminal complaint filed by Sherpa, ECCHR, and 11 former Syrian employees accuses Lafarge and subsidiaries of complicity in crimes against humanity and financing terrorism.

Holcim says it had no knowledge of Lafarge’s Syria operations at the time of the 2015 acquisition and stresses it is not implicated in ongoing actions.

Holcim maintains its 2015 purchase did not entail ongoing involvement in Lafarge’s Syria-era dealings.

The case alleges Lafarge preferred keeping the business running over termination, exposing it to terrorism-financing and potential crimes against humanity in relation to broader Syrian violence.

Perspective program interviews highlight that private economic interests may have overridden human rights and employee safety concerns in conflict zones.

Defendants are accused of providing over 4.6 million euros to three jihadist groups, including Daesh, with some charges of sanctions violations.

LafargeHolcim allegedly paid intermediaries who procured materials from ISIS and facilitated movement of people and goods; the U.S. case resulted in a about $778 million settlement in 2022.

The trial will address civil/criminal liability of the corporate entity and former executives, distinct from broader ongoing investigations.

Contextual background notes the Syrian conflict’s escalation and IS's rise and eventual defeat by coalition forces by 2019.

The scandal emerged in 2016, with a full inquiry starting in 2017; Lafarge later merged with Holcim, and the U.S. subsidiary pled guilty in 2022 with a substantial fine.

The France case is unprecedented in scope, with eight individuals under investigation since 2017 and potential penalties up to ten years in prison.