A Corporate Crime Base*
updated 13.04.2026
The purpose of the Corporate Crime-Base is to warn business about risky behaviour in conflict-effected and high risk areas and to help victims in those areas exercise their right to remedy. To do this, the red flags below highlight fact patterns that have been investigated or litigated.
Landmark decision: French court sentences Lafarge and former executives for financing terrorism in Syria
•
Click through for case summary and links
•
Landmark decision: French court sentences Lafarge and former executives for financing terrorism in Syria • Click through for case summary and links •
-
1. Providing the means to torture or kill
Liability may arise for companies or individuals when they provide weapons or dual-use material to governments or armed groups who use those products to commit atrocity crimes. This may extend to the provision of non-lethal material necessary for weapons to function, such as components or fuel. Liability may arise even where import and export regulations are fully respected.
Courts in the Netherlands have convicted Dutch businessmen for complicity in international crimes for providing small arms to perpetrators of international crimes, and for providing components for making chemical weapons that were used against civilians.
-
2. Financing international crimes
Providing resources to those who commit international crimes may result in liability, if those resources contribute to crimes being committed or to violations of international law. Financing can take a number of forms, from simple cash payments or in-kind contributions, transactions for goods or services, or the provision of financial services.
In 2024, a US jury ordered a multinational food company to pay US$ 38 million to families of nine people killed by Colombian paramilitaries the company had made payments to over several years. In France, a multinational cement company is on trial in connection with financial transactions with ISIS in Syria.
-
3. Providing information to the perpetrators of international crimes
Liability may arise for companies or individuals when they provide data or information to governments or armed groups who use that information to commit atrocity crimes. This may involve the provision of information enabling the targeting of activists, journalists, trade unionists, or human rights defenders, as well as the provision of digital surveillance systems that enable such targeting. Liability may arise even where national law is complied with or import and export regulations are respected.
In 2021, four executives of a technology company were charged with complicity in torture by a French court in connection with the use of their company’s surveillance technology by authorities in Libya and Egypt.
-
4. Use of company assets in the commission of crimes
The use of company facilities and equipment in the commission of international crimes can create liability for the company, even if it did not authorise or intend such use of those assets. This may include, for example, physical or digital infrastructure used in the perpetration of international crimes or violations of international law
In 2018 a court in Argentina convicted two former executives for complicity in crimes against humanity during the military dictatorship in the 1970s for their role in facilitating the torture of factory employees by security forces, including allowing a detention center to be set up on factory premises.
-
5. Expelling people from their communities
A company may face liability if it has gained access to the site on which it operates, where it builds infrastructure, or where it explores for natural resources, through forced displacement.
Two executives are on trial in Sweden accused of having supported military operations by Sudanese forces that resulted in thousands of deaths and the displacement of an estimated 180,000 people.
-
6. Abusive private security
Abuses by private security companies or their employees can create direct liabilities for the companies themselves as well as accomplice liability for their partners and clients. Legal risks may be greater where contractors or their partners and clients have a history of abusive conduct.
In 2024, a US jury ordered a private security contractor to pay victims a total of $42 million in connection with torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
-
7. Taking people’s property
A company or its executives may be liable for the war crime of pillage if company operations benefit from the unlawful appropriation of property in occupied territories or in the context of armed conflict.
In the aftermath of World War II, the leaders of German firms IG Farben and Krupp were convicted of pillage for participating in the coerced seizure of industrial assets in areas occupied by Germany.
-
8. Forcing people to work
Companies forcing people to work through the threat or use of violence or other forms of coercion may face liability under laws prohibiting forced labour or slavery. Using forced labour organized by state authorities, or in sectors where exploitation of workers is widespread, may also give rise to liability.
In 2025, a Brazilian labour court ordered a German multinational to pay $30 million in damages for its use of forced labour during the country’s dictatorship.
-
9. Receiving or handling proceeds of crime
Receiving funds or other property which is associated with criminal activities - such as forced labour or pillage - exposes companies and individuals to legal risks under money-laundering statutes in most jurisdictions. Holding, managing or hiding such funds, including funneling suspicious funds into legitimate financial channels (laundering), may result in prosecution and lawsuits.
In 2014, Swiss authorities investigated a complaint alleging complicity in war crimes and aggravated money laundering over allegations a Swiss company had processed several tonnes of gold pillaged from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
-
10. Transacting with sanctioned entities
A company and its executives may be held liable for transactions with people or organisations listed under targeted sanctions. Economic sanctions may create liabilities for buying, selling, provisioning, or transporting products, commodities or assets originating from or going to a sanctioned country or designated group.
In 2021, a Danish shipping company was convicted for violating EU sanctions by providing jet fuel to Russian forces in Syria.
-
11. Facilitating mass atrocities
Mass atrocities require organisational capacity. Companies and their executives may face liability when their business activities form a nexus with the organisation of mass atrocities. This can arise where companies or businesspeople transact with political, economic or military groups connected to, for example, ethnic cleansing or siege warfare. In these situations, liability can arise from commercial connections to larger patterns of criminal behaviour, such as extensive pillage, widespread forced labour, forced displacement, persecution or genocide.
In 2022, French authorities opened an investigation into allegations that a major bank had facilitated crimes against humanity and genocide through its provision of financial services to the government of Sudan.
FAQs & disclaimers
-
The purpose of the Corporate Crime-Base is to warn business - including investors - about risky commercial behaviour in conflict-effected and high risk areas and to help victims in those areas exercise their right to remedy.
To do this, the Corporate Crimes-Base highlights red flags. Each red flag describes fact patterns that have been either investigated or litigated.
Each red flag is based on open sources, publicly available information that we have summarized and for which we provide sources and citations. We have not verified the underlying facts or legal analysis from these sources, so check and cite the original resources, not this web site.
The list of red flags here is indicative of fact patterns but not meant to be exhaustive with respect to cases or risks. There are other risks out there, both to rights holders and for business entities.
Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
-
No. Some of the defendants in the cases summarized here have been convicted, others acquitted. Some cases have been dropped, or have been settled out of court. Some cases are ongoing.
Each case has its own history. They are included here because each involves a company or business person ending up in court or being investigated by the relevant authorities.
But it is important to emphasize everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, including business actors in war zones or those accused of international crimes.
-
War and conflict are not law free zones.
The legal bases for the risk of liability is international humanitarian and criminal law governing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, including rules governing aggression, self-determination and occupation. In addition, national laws governing sanctions may also apply. These laws can apply to businesses (legal persons) as well as individuals and can trigger cases in jurisdictions around the world.
In effect, international criminal law can criminalize business activities that might otherwise be technically legal under normal regulation or commercial law. This can happen both when a business acts to commit a crime directly as a perpetrator or when it contributes to a crime by someone else, as an accomplice.
Due diligence of the type advocated as the basis for responsible business conduct helps business take action to avoid the risk of actual involvement in human rights abuse, including involvement in violations of the laws mentioned above. But due diligence it is not a legal shield of immunity against liability where such involvements result in actual culpable behaviour.
-
Most of the cases alleging corporate involvement in such crimes as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide arise in the home countries of the defendant companies or businesspeople, not in the country where the crimes occurred.
This is due to most cases being based criminal or civil laws that allow for litigation of international crimes that happen abroad, such as universal jurisdiction. This has been called the “expanding web of liability” and is increasingly recognized as a necessary element of international justice.
The jurisdiction of international courts, such as the International Criminal Court, tend not to have jurisdiction over legal persons, such as businesses. However, individual business people have been prosecuted by such courts.
So, corporations are not going to end up in the ICC dock in the Hague. A CEO might, but don’t hold your breath.
-
Yes, it’s growing. The number of cases filed or reaching court alleging business entity involvement in international crimes grows each year. This is in part driven by an increasing resort to violence as part of strategic competition in the international system, a system that is also full of global value chains and multinational production networks.
But the number of cases is still a trickle, not a flood. This is in part explained by the fact that the cases described here are a sub-set of international crimes cases - war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide - and even that larger set of cases are few and far between.
So, yes, in conflict and war, justice can be hard to come by.
When viewed through the lens of strategic litigation, corporate cases involving allegations of international crimes are nowhere near as common as cases aimed at protecting our biosphere or defending human rights more generally. Those other cases can also land a company in court. But we don’t deal with those other types of cases here.
-
The right thing, obviously.
Seriously, though, all businesses operating in or connected to conflict, repression or widespread violence should be conducting heightened human rights due diligence in a manner sensitive to conflict dynamics to identify the risks that their operations are linked to international crimes. This is a minimum standard for responsible business conduct.
Companies should be aware that due diligence is a practical tool to manage risk and not an automatic shield against liability. Legal risks may still arise.
-
Of course!
To qualify for inclusion, the cases presented here must have generated a legal risk, which we define as either prompting a formal criminal investigation, formal charges, or actual litigation in court. The substance of the allegations must pertain to international crimes or their national equivalent. Sanctions violations may also qualify.
Drop us a line at the contact email below. If the case you are thinking of meets the criteria for inclusion, we’ll get back to you about the kinds of sources we need to be able to include it. Apologies in advance for any delay. This web site is made by volunteers and we have day jobs, families, etc.
Keep in mind that the list of cases here is not meant to be exhaustive; rather it is meant to be indicative of the patterns of risk of corporate involvement in international crimes. We could try to cover all cases, but then we would need funding… (Donate! :))
-
We do our best to summarize complex cases in plain language and to stick as close to the original sources as possible. We also provide links to the sources, like company and victim statements and court documents, so you can check for yourself. Please do let us know at the email below of any errors you detect. All constructive referrals will be taken seriously.
Please be patient: this can take time, as the crime-base is managed by volunteers.
-
There are a number of resources online that will help victims and survivors, business people, investigators, risk managers, journalists, and the interested public unpack the sometimes complex issues related to corporate involvement in international crimes.
Click through here to find links to further resources