Shares in France’s largest bank, BNP Paribas, plummeted on Monday, October 20, 2025, after a U.S. federal jury in New York found the bank liable for aiding Sudan’s government in committing atrocities during the early 2000s. The verdict, delivered late last week, ordered BNP Paribas to pay a combined $20.75 million to three Sudanese plaintiffs—now U.S. citizens—who fled their homeland after suffering horrific abuses under the regime of former President Omar al-Bashir.
The case, which has reverberated through international financial markets and reignited debates about corporate accountability, centers on BNP Paribas’s provision of banking services to Sudan between 2002 and 2008. According to Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, the bank’s actions allowed the Sudanese government access to the U.S. financial system and international money markets, even as the regime carried out what plaintiffs and human rights groups describe as one of the most notorious campaigns of persecution in modern history.
During the Darfur conflict and related violence, an estimated 300,000 people were killed and as many as 2.7 million were displaced, according to United Nations figures cited by BBC and Al Jazeera. The three plaintiffs, whose identities have not been disclosed for safety reasons, testified in Manhattan federal court about the horrors they endured: torture, sexual assault, and brutal attacks by Sudanese soldiers and the Janjaweed militia. Their accounts painted a vivid picture of the suffering inflicted during al-Bashir’s rule, which lasted nearly three decades before his ouster in 2019.
After just four hours of deliberation, jurors awarded the plaintiffs between $6.7 million and $7.3 million each. The verdict, as reported by The Associated Press, marks a significant step on the road to justice for the survivors. Adam Levitt, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said, “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.”
But BNP Paribas was quick to push back. In a statement released Monday, the bank declared its "unwavering intention to appeal" the verdict, insisting that the result was “clearly wrong and ignores important evidence the bank was not permitted to introduce.” The company further argued that its operations in Sudan were legal under European law and that it did not knowingly facilitate human rights abuses. “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’s lawyers wrote in an August court filing, as quoted by AP.
The financial fallout was immediate. BNP Paribas shares tumbled as much as 10 percent in Paris and New York trading on October 20, their steepest daily decline since March 2023, according to Reuters and Al Jazeera. By the end of the day, the shares were still down 8.7 percent—hitting a six-month low and outpacing declines seen by other major French banks. The uncertainty about potential further legal claims and financial penalties weighed heavily on investor sentiment. “A combination of a lack of visibility on the potential financial impact and next legal steps, a reminder of 2014 share price performance as well as a capital path that leaves relatively little room for error, is likely to hang over the shares until more visibility is provided,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets observed in a note cited by Reuters.
Why the market jitters? Lawyers for the plaintiffs say this verdict could open the floodgates for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the U.S.—all members of the broader class-action case—to seek billions of dollars in damages from BNP Paribas. Levitt called the trial a “bellwether,” suggesting that its findings might be applied to other cases involving Sudanese refugees. However, BNP Paribas has sought to tamp down such speculation, stating, “This verdict is specific to these three plaintiffs and should not have broader application. Any attempt to extrapolate is necessarily wrong as is any speculation regarding a potential settlement.”
The specter of a much larger financial hit looms. Bloomberg estimates, referenced by France 24, suggest a potential settlement in the range of $10 billion if further claims materialize. RBC analysts noted that similar litigation in 2014 led to BNP Paribas underperforming its sector by 10 percent from the first litigation provision to the eventual settlement. That year, the bank pleaded guilty and paid a staggering $8.97 billion penalty to resolve U.S. charges that it processed billions of dollars in prohibited transactions for Sudanese, Iranian, and Cuban entities subject to sanctions.
The legal and moral complexities of the case are formidable. BNP Paribas’s defense hinges on the argument that its business dealings in Sudan—providing letters of credit and facilitating trade—were not directly linked to military transactions or the financing of arms. “It never financed Sudan’s purchase of arms, and there is no evidence linking any specific transaction to Plaintiffs’ injuries,” the bank’s lawyers maintained. Yet, for the plaintiffs and their advocates, the bank’s willingness to provide Sudan with access to global financial markets during a period of mass violence was tantamount to complicity.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan has only deepened. The country has been mired in civil war for more than two years, sparking what aid organizations describe as one of the world’s worst displacement and hunger crises. Former President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, remains in a military-run detention facility in northern Sudan, according to his lawyer. Despite international pressure, he has not been handed over to The Hague to face justice.
For the three plaintiffs who won their case, the verdict represents a measure of accountability—and perhaps a glimmer of hope for thousands of others still seeking redress. But for BNP Paribas, the legal battle is far from over. The bank’s determination to appeal, coupled with the uncertainty swirling around further claims, means that the fallout from this landmark verdict will likely reverberate for months, if not years, to come.
As the dust settles, the case stands as a stark reminder: the consequences of doing business in conflict zones can extend far beyond the balance sheet, shaping reputations and legacies in ways that few could have predicted.