Published On 4/29/2026
The French cement company Lafarge, along with the other eight defendants, including its former CEO Bruno Laffont, appealed the sentences issued against them on charges of financing ISIS in Syria in 2013 and 2014, according to what the public prosecutor at the Paris Court of Appeal told Agence France-Presse.
The Criminal Court in Paris convicted them all on April 13 of paying about 5.6 million euros to armed groups in 2013 and 2014, with the aim of maintaining the activity of a cement factory in Jalabiya in northern Syria.
The court ruled to fine the company the maximum stipulated amount, i.e. 1.12 million euros, while obliging it to join forces with 4 of its former directors to pay a customs fine of 4.57 million euros for non-compliance with international financial sanctions, and described it as “prepared for all forms of collusion with terrorist organizations.”
Severe penalties
The court also imposed severe penalties on 7 former Lafarge officials, including Laffont, who served as CEO between 2007 and 2015.
The judges criticized his “bad faith” and “cowardice”, in reference to his assertion that he was not aware of the payments to armed groups, and sentenced him to 6 years in prison with an arrest warrant. He was imprisoned directly in La Santé prison in Paris, before submitting a request for his release.
As for his former deputy, Christian Ero, who was assistant general director and was “leading negotiations with ISIS to conclude a lucrative agreement for the factory,” according to the judges, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison with an arrest warrant.
Bruno Pecheux, Lafarge branch manager in Syria between 2008 and July 20, 2014, was sentenced to the same penalty, but was not imprisoned due to his health condition.
The court also issued other sentences that ranged from 18 months against a Norwegian security director in the company, to 7 years in prison for a fugitive Syrian intermediary who was managing relations and payments with armed groups.
The “Sherpa” organizations and the “European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights”, which were considered civil parties in the case, welcomed the initial ruling and considered it “a major victory in the fight against the impunity of multinational companies for serious human rights violations.”
