On October 17, 2025, a New York federal jury delivered a landmark verdict against French banking giant BNP Paribas, finding the institution liable for enabling atrocities committed by Sudan’s government during the brutal rule of Omar al-Bashir. The decision, which awarded a total of nearly $21 million in damages to three Sudanese-born plaintiffs now living as American citizens, has sent shockwaves through the global banking sector and human rights communities alike.
The trial, which unfolded over five weeks in a Manhattan courtroom under the supervision of US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, centered on whether BNP Paribas’s financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the suffering endured by survivors of ethnic cleansing and mass violence in Sudan. The plaintiffs—a woman and two men—shared harrowing testimony of their experiences: torture, cigarette burns, knife wounds, and, for the woman, sexual assault at the hands of Sudanese soldiers and the notorious Janjaweed militia.
“I have no relatives left,” testified Entesar Osman Kasher, one of the plaintiffs, as reported by AFP and France 24. Their stories painted a chilling picture of life under a regime that, according to the United Nations, was responsible for the deaths of approximately 300,000 people and the displacement of as many as 2.7 million between 2002 and 2008, particularly in the Darfur region.
At the heart of the case was BNP Paribas’s role in providing Sudan with access to the international financial system from the late 1990s until 2009. The bank issued letters of credit that allowed Sudan to honor import and export commitments, facilitating the flow of billions of dollars from the sale of commodities like cotton and oil. The plaintiffs argued that these financial lifelines enabled the Sudanese regime to fund its military operations and sustain campaigns of ethnic cleansing and persecution.
“Our clients lost everything to a campaign of destruction fueled by U.S. dollars, that BNP Paribas facilitated and that should have been stopped,” said Bobby DiCello, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, in remarks reported by Reuters and AFP. “The jury recognized that financial institutions cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions.”
The verdict marks a significant moment for accountability in global finance. Lawyers for the plaintiffs suggested that the case could serve as a “bellwether trial” for thousands of other Sudanese refugees—over 20,000 by some estimates—who may now seek damages from the French bank. Adam Levitt, another attorney for the plaintiffs, told AP, “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.”
BNP Paribas, for its part, has vigorously denied any wrongdoing and plans to appeal the verdict. In a statement to AFP and Reuters, a spokesperson for the bank said, “This result is clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict, which is based on a distortion of controlling Swiss law and ignores important evidence the bank was not permitted to introduce.” The bank’s legal team argued that its operations in Sudan were legal under European law and that other global institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, partnered with the Sudanese government during the same period. They further contended that BNP Paribas had no knowledge of human rights violations at the time and that Sudan would have committed atrocities regardless of the bank’s involvement.
“There’s just no connection between the bank’s conduct and what happened to these three plaintiffs,” asserted defense attorney Dani James, as quoted by France 24. Another defense lawyer, Barry Berke, argued, “Sudan would and did commit human rights crimes without oil or BNP Paribas.”
The jury, however, was unconvinced by these arguments. Judge Hellerstein, who had previously denied BNP Paribas’s motion to dismiss the case, noted in his pretrial decision that there were facts “showing a relationship between BNP Paribas’s banking services and abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government.”
The case also revisited BNP Paribas’s prior entanglement with US authorities. In 2014, the bank pleaded guilty and agreed to pay an $8.97 billion penalty after admitting it had processed billions of dollars in transactions for Sudanese, Iranian, and Cuban entities subject to US sanctions. That settlement, at the time, was one of the largest penalties ever levied against a financial institution for sanctions violations.
The Sudanese conflict, which the US government recognized as genocide in 2004, has left deep scars on the country and its people. Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades, was ousted in 2019 after months of popular protests. He is currently detained in a military-run facility in northern Sudan, wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges including genocide, but has yet to be extradited to The Hague. Since his removal, Sudan has remained mired in instability, with a 2021 military coup and ongoing civil war contributing to what aid organizations describe as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
BNP Paribas’s defense pointed out that human rights abuses in Sudan neither began nor ended with their banking activities. In court filings, the bank insisted, “Human rights abuses in Sudan did not start with BNPP, did not end when BNPP left Sudan, and were not caused by BNPP.” The bank also stressed that it never participated in Sudanese military transactions or financed arms purchases, and that no evidence tied any specific transaction directly to the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.
Despite these arguments, the jury’s verdict has far-reaching implications. While BNP Paribas maintains that the outcome should apply only to the three plaintiffs involved, lawyers for the victims see the decision as a potential watershed for broader accountability. “This is a victory for justice and accountability,” DiCello declared, emphasizing the message that financial institutions can no longer claim ignorance when their services are used to facilitate mass atrocities.
As Sudan continues to grapple with civil conflict and the legacy of Bashir’s rule, the verdict against BNP Paribas stands as a rare moment of legal reckoning for a major global bank accused of enabling state-sponsored violence. For the survivors who testified, and for many others still seeking justice, the decision offers a measure of recognition for suffering that, for too long, was ignored by the world’s financial powers.
