On October 17, 2025, a federal jury in New York set a historic precedent by finding France’s largest bank, BNP Paribas, liable for aiding and enabling atrocities committed by the Sudanese government under former president Omar al-Bashir. The verdict, which awarded nearly $21 million in damages to three Sudanese refugees who are now U.S. citizens, marks one of the first times a global financial institution has been held civilly responsible for facilitating crimes against humanity. It could open the legal floodgates for thousands of other survivors seeking justice and compensation.
The three plaintiffs—Entesar Osman Kashef, Abulgasim Abdalla, and Turjuman Adam—were each awarded between $6.7 million and $7.3 million after about four hours of jury deliberation. According to the Associated Press, the plaintiffs argued in an August 28, 2025 pretrial memorandum that BNP Paribas “helped the Sudanese government carry out one of the most notorious campaigns of persecution in modern history.” The atrocities in question occurred primarily in Sudan’s Darfur region, where, over the course of years, as many as 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were displaced.
The case was brought in 2016 by Sudanese refugees living in the United States, following BNP Paribas’ 2015 guilty plea to violating U.S. sanctions by processing billions of dollars in transactions for Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. In 2014, the bank agreed to pay nearly $9 billion to settle criminal charges, one of the largest penalties in U.S. history, and acknowledged it had processed billions for clients in Sudan as well as Cuba and Iran. But this civil trial is different: it is about holding the bank directly accountable to individuals who suffered as a result of its actions.
Adam Levitt, the plaintiffs’ attorney, called the case a “bellwether trial,” telling the Los Angeles Times, “They’re very gratified that steps on the road toward justice are being achieved, and they’re happy that the bank is being held responsible for its abhorrent conduct.” Levitt further described the verdict as a chance for tens of thousands of Sudanese survivors living in the United States to pursue potentially billions in civil recovery—a view echoed by USA Herald, which noted the verdict’s historic nature and its potential to set a sweeping legal precedent.
The jury concluded that each plaintiff “proved beyond a preponderant likelihood” that BNP Paribas was liable for its role in the atrocities committed against Black African civilians in Sudan’s Darfur region between 1997 and 2011. During that period, BNP Paribas gave Sudanese authorities access to international money markets from at least 2002 to 2008. This access, the plaintiffs argued, allowed the Sudanese government to finance operations that led to mass displacement, the destruction of property, and the loss of countless lives.
Yet, BNP Paribas has strongly rejected the jury’s findings. In a statement provided to the media, a spokesperson for the bank said, “The result is clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict,” adding that the bank had not been allowed to introduce important evidence during the trial. The bank’s legal team argued that Sudan had other sources of money and that BNP Paribas did not knowingly help the government engage in human rights abuses. In an August court filing, their lawyers wrote, “Human rights abuses in Sudan did not start with BNPP, did not end when BNPP left Sudan, and were not caused by BNPP.” They also insisted, “BNP Paribas never participated in Sudanese military transactions in any way—it never financed Sudan’s purchase of arms, and there is no evidence linking any specific transaction to Plaintiffs’ injuries.”
Despite these arguments, the jury sided with the plaintiffs. The verdict, according to the Associated Press, could apply to 23,000 Sudanese refugees who are U.S. citizens and are part of the broader class-action case seeking billions more in damages. However, BNP Paribas maintains that the verdict should have no broader application beyond the three plaintiffs in this trial.
The context of the case is rooted in the catastrophic violence that swept through Darfur and other parts of Sudan in the early 2000s. Under the rule of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government launched brutal campaigns against ethnic minorities and political opponents, leading to accusations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Al-Bashir himself has been charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) with crimes including genocide, though he remains in a military-run detention facility in northern Sudan and has not been handed over to The Hague.
Sudan’s ongoing turmoil has only deepened in recent years. As of October 2025, the country has been embroiled in civil war for over two years, sparking what aid organizations describe as one of the world’s worst displacement and hunger crises. The pain and instability left in the wake of the Darfur conflict still reverberate today, with millions of Sudanese living in exile or as refugees, many in the United States.
The legal battle over BNP Paribas’ responsibility is far from over. The bank has announced plans to appeal, arguing that critical evidence was excluded and that it should not be held liable for the actions of the Sudanese government. A spokesperson reiterated, “The verdict was specific to the three plaintiffs and should not have broader application beyond this decision.”
Meanwhile, human rights advocates and legal experts are closely watching the case. The verdict is seen as a warning to other global financial institutions that they may be held accountable for the consequences of enabling repressive regimes. As the USA Herald pointed out, the decision “marks a historic legal precedent, opening the door for tens of thousands of Sudanese survivors living in the United States to pursue potentially billions of dollars in civil recovery.”
For the three plaintiffs, the jury’s decision is a long-awaited measure of justice. Displaced from their homeland, having lost their homes and property, they now see the verdict as a step toward accountability. Their lawyer, Adam Levitt, expressed hope that the findings would serve as a model for future cases and bring some measure of redress to the thousands of others who suffered under Sudan’s former regime.
As the legal process moves forward, the world waits to see whether this landmark verdict will stand on appeal—and whether it will truly mark a turning point in the fight to hold banks and corporations to account for their role in some of history’s darkest chapters.