BNP Paribas To Pay $20 Million Damages For Complicity In Sudan Atrocities

On October 17, 2025, a New York federal jury found BNP Paribas, the largest bank in France, liable for more than $20.5 million in damages over its role in providing banking services to Sudanese leaders as they were committing international crimes (including genocide) in the country between 2002 and 2008. The $20.5 million in damages is to be paid to three Sudanese plaintiffs, who now reside in the U.S., who testified about atrocities perpetrated under former President Omar al-Bashir’s rule. This landmark verdict may open the door for thousands of Sudanese refugees in the U.S. to seek damages from the French bank. BNP Paribas denies its complicity.

The lawsuit, Kashef, et al. v. BNP Paribas, et al., was brought on behalf of Sudanese refugees who fled violence and persecution perpetrated throughout Sudan. BNP Paribas’ request to get the case thrown out ahead of trial was denied. The trial focused on whether BNP Paribas’ financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by victims/survivors of international crimes committed in Sudan. The five-week jury trial centered on BNP Paribas’ admitted violations of U.S. sanctions, which ultimately allowed Sudan’s government to access billions of U.S. dollars through its Geneva office during the Sudan conflict. [Indeed, in 2014, the French bank pleaded guilty to criminal charges of processing blacklisted funds from Sudan and other sanctioned countries through the U.S. financial system. The bank paid a close to $9 billion penalty.]

The three plaintiffs argued, and the jury agreed, that the bank’s financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by victims/survivors of the atrocity crimes in the country. The jury awarded $6.4 million to Abulgasim Abdalla, $7.3 million to Entesar Osman Kashef, and $6.75 million to Turjuman Adam (some $20.5 million in total). Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said after the verdict: “The bank provided a blank cheque to the regime, which it used to perpetrate a reign of death and destruction on that targeted population. The bank knew of the genocidal use and chose to turn a blind eye of indifference to that human consequence. ” However, as a BNP Paribas spokesman commented, “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.”

This is an important case reminding us about corporate responsibility for complicity in international crimes. The atrocities in Sudan were well-documented throughout the years. In 2004, the U.S. government recognized the Sudanese conflict as a genocide. As the then Secretary of State Colin L. Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 9, 20024, his assessment of evidence concluded that “that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility, and that genocide may still be occurring.” In March 2005, the U.N. Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor for investigations into allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was the first time the U.N. Security Council successfully referred a situation to the ICC. In 2009 and 2010, the ICC issued arrest warrants for former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. Omar Al-Bashir was the first sitting President to be wanted by the ICC, and the first person to be charged by the ICC for the crime of genocide. Neither of the two warrants of arrest against him has been enforced, and he remains “at large.”

The jury’s verdict is among the first to hold a global bank civilly liable for financially enabling international crimes. The verdict is expected to pave the way for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees living in the United States to seek billions more in damages. Furthermore, as Sudan is subjected to yet another wave of international crimes, it is crucial to examine how this verdict could implicate other corporate actors complicit by way of providing services to those responsible.