On October 17, 2025, a federal jury in New York delivered a landmark verdict against France’s largest bank, BNP Paribas S.A., thrusting the financial giant into the global spotlight for its alleged role in facilitating atrocities during Sudan’s Darfur conflict. The jury ordered BNP Paribas to pay a total of $20.8 million in damages to three U.S. citizens who had been displaced by the violence, marking a significant development in the ongoing quest for accountability in cases of corporate complicity in human rights abuses.
The case, heard over a five-week trial in Manhattan under U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, centered on BNP Paribas’s provision of access to the U.S. financial system for the Sudanese government between 2002 and 2008. During this period, Sudan, under the leadership of President Omar al-Bashir, was embroiled in the Darfur conflict—a brutal campaign that resulted in up to 300,000 deaths and displaced an estimated 2.7 million people, according to BBC and Reuters reports. The U.S. government officially recognized the conflict as genocide as early as 2004.
The three plaintiffs, now residing in the United States, testified about the devastating human rights abuses they endured. Each was awarded between $6.7 million and $7.3 million. Their legal team argued that BNP Paribas’s actions enabled the Sudanese government to fund and execute a campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass violence, fueling the destruction that uprooted their lives. "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 plaintiffs’ lawyers, as quoted by Reuters and Financial World.
BNP Paribas, for its part, has denied liability from the outset. The bank argues that Sudan had other sources of funding and that it did not knowingly support human rights abuses. In a statement provided after the verdict, a BNP Paribas spokesperson maintained, "BNP Paribas believes that 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 emphasized that the verdict should be considered specific to the three individual plaintiffs and not as a precedent for broader claims.
The verdict comes as part of a broader legal effort involving a proposed class-action lawsuit representing some 23,000 U.S. citizens who are Sudanese refugees. These refugees fled violence in Darfur, South Sudan, and the Nuba Mountains, seeking justice for the losses they suffered. Adam Levitt, another attorney for the plaintiffs, described the case as a "bellwether trial," expressing hope that the findings could be applied to the larger class of refugees. "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 told the Associated Press.
The trial itself was a high-stakes affair. Judge Hellerstein, who presided over the proceedings, had previously denied a request by BNP Paribas to dismiss the case before trial. The central question before the jury was whether the bank’s financial services were a "natural and adequate cause" of the harm suffered by survivors of the Sudanese government’s campaign. Judge Hellerstein noted in a prior decision that there were facts indicating a relationship between BNP Paribas’s banking services and the abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese regime.
The implications of the jury’s decision extend far beyond the three plaintiffs. According to lawyers representing the victims, the verdict opens the door for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the U.S. to seek billions of dollars in damages from the French bank. The outcome is being closely watched by human rights advocates and legal experts, as it could set a precedent for holding multinational corporations accountable for their roles in facilitating atrocities—even if those roles are indirect or involve providing financial services rather than direct participation.
This is not the first time BNP Paribas has faced scrutiny over its dealings with sanctioned regimes. In 2014, the bank pleaded guilty in New York to processing billions of dollars in transactions for clients in Sudan, as well as Cuba and Iran—all countries under U.S. sanctions. BNP Paribas agreed to pay a staggering $8.97 billion penalty to settle those charges, acknowledging at the time that it had transferred billions of dollars for Sudanese, Iranian, and Cuban entities subject to economic sanctions. That record-breaking settlement underscored the risks global banks face when operating in regions plagued by conflict and subject to international sanctions.
The bank’s defense in the most recent trial echoed arguments made in the past. BNP Paribas’s lawyers contended that "human rights abuses in Sudan did not start with BNPP, did not end when BNPP left Sudan, and were not caused by BNPP." They emphasized that the bank "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." Nevertheless, the jury found that the bank’s actions—specifically, granting Sudanese authorities access to international money markets from at least 2002 to 2008—were sufficiently connected to the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.
The verdict also brings renewed attention to the legacy of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s former president, who is currently held in a military detention facility in northern Sudan. Al-Bashir has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes including genocide, but he has not yet been handed over to face justice in The Hague. Meanwhile, Sudan continues to grapple with internal conflict and humanitarian crises, with aid organizations describing the situation as one of the world’s worst displacement and hunger emergencies.
For many observers, the case against BNP Paribas highlights the evolving landscape of corporate accountability. As legal frameworks adapt to address the complicity of multinational corporations in human rights violations, financial institutions are finding themselves under increasing scrutiny for their operations in conflict zones. The outcome of this case may well influence how other banks and corporations approach ethical considerations and compliance with international laws in their global activities.
As BNP Paribas prepares its appeal, the world is watching to see whether this verdict will stand—and what it will mean for the future of corporate responsibility in an increasingly interconnected world. The plaintiffs, along with thousands of Sudanese refugees, await the next steps with a sense of cautious optimism, hoping that their pursuit of justice will inspire broader change in the way global finance intersects with human rights.
