US Jury Rules BNP Paribas Enabled Sudanese Atrocities

A recent ruling by a U.S. jury has found BNP Paribas culpable of facilitating atrocities in Sudan. The jury concluded that the French bank provided banking services that contributed to the Sudanese government’s genocidal actions. This significant legal decision took place in Manhattan and has implications for many Sudanese refugees.

BNP Paribas Held Responsible for Genocide

On October 17, 2023, a federal jury ruled that BNP Paribas helped enable genocide in Sudan, specifically under the regime of former President Omar al-Bashir. The jury’s verdict came after a five-week trial, overseen by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

Financial Penalties and Impacts

The jury has ordered BNP Paribas to pay $20.5 million to three Sudanese plaintiffs. These individuals testified about the human rights abuses they experienced, leading to their resettlement in the U.S. Their case opens the possibility for over 20,000 Sudanese refugees to seek substantial compensation from the bank.

Legal Background and Trial Details

• The lawsuit highlights a connection between BNP Paribas’s banking activities and atrocities committed by the Sudanese government.
• Previously, in 2004, the U.S. government recognized the conflict in Sudan as genocide.
• BNP Paribas faced severe penalties in 2014, pleading guilty to transferring funds to sanctioned entities.

Bobby DiCello, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the destructive impact of the bank’s actions. He stated, “Our clients lost everything to a campaign of destruction fueled by U.S. dollars.”

BNP Paribas’s Response

A spokesperson for BNP Paribas indicated that the bank intends to appeal the verdict. The bank maintains that the ruling pertains only to the three individual plaintiffs and should not extend beyond them. The spokesperson criticized the decision as being based on a misinterpretation of relevant Swiss law, claiming that critical evidence was overlooked during the trial.

The ramifications of this verdict could be profound, paving the way for further claims against the bank related to its past dealings in Sudan. As these developments unfold, the attention will remain focused on both the bank’s appeal and the potential for numerous refugee claims.