A federal jury in Manhattan found BNP Paribas liable in October 2025 for helping finance the Sudanese government’s campaign of mass atrocities, awarding $20.75 million to three Sudanese refugees who are now U.S. citizens. The verdict in the BNP Paribas Sudan lawsuit, formally Kashef v. BNP Paribas, was the first time a major international bank was held civilly liable for bankrolling a regime’s genocide. The case is part of a certified class action covering more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees and asylees in the United States, and BNP Paribas is appealing a $21 million final judgment with the backing of the U.S. government.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
Entesar Osman Kashef and more than 20 named co-plaintiffs filed suit on April 29, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Their complaint brought 20 tort claims under New York law, including negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and aiding and abetting assault, battery, false imprisonment, and wrongful death.1FindLaw. Kashef v. BNP Paribas, No. 18-1304
The theory was that by giving the regime of Omar al-Bashir access to the U.S. financial system in violation of sanctions, BNP Paribas enabled the government to buy weapons and sustain a war economy that funded a campaign of mass rape, torture, murder, and displacement against Black African civilians in Darfur and other parts of Sudan.
How the Case Reached Trial
The district court initially dismissed most of the claims under the “act of state” doctrine, which generally bars U.S. courts from judging the official acts of a foreign government. On May 22, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated that dismissal, ruling that there was no evidence Sudan’s atrocities qualified as “official government action” and that genocide violates jus cogens norms of international law, meaning it can never be treated as a legitimate sovereign act.1FindLaw. Kashef v. BNP Paribas, No. 18-1304
A pivotal pretrial ruling determined that Swiss law, not New York law, governs the bank’s liability. Under New York’s choice-of-law rules, the court found Switzerland had the greatest interest because the compliance decisions and transaction processing at the heart of the alleged misconduct ran through BNP Paribas offices in Geneva and Paris.2Steptoe. Sanctions and Civil Remedies for Human Rights Abuse The claims proceeded under Article 50(1) of the Switzerland Code of Obligations, which imposes secondary liability on an accomplice who “consciously assisted” a wrongdoer. The court dismissed claims for direct liability and for punitive damages, which are not available under Swiss law.3ALM Media. Kashef v. BNP Paribas Summary Judgment Opinion
On May 9, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein certified a class of more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees and asylees who had lived in Sudan or South Sudan between November 1997 and December 2011 and were granted refugee or asylum status in the United States.4Hausfeld LLP. Kashef v. BNP Paribas Sudan Human Rights Lawsuit BNP Paribas tried to get interlocutory appellate review of the certification and later petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging whether appellate courts have discretion under Rule 23(f) to review a class-certification order on the grounds that it is “manifestly erroneous.”5Supreme Court of the United States. Kashef v. BNP Paribas, No. 24-628, Brief in Opposition
The October 2025 Verdict
The bellwether trial opened on September 11, 2025, before Judge Hellerstein, with three individual plaintiffs chosen to represent the broader class. After five weeks of testimony, the eight-member jury returned a unanimous verdict on October 17, 2025, finding BNP Paribas liable.4Hausfeld LLP. Kashef v. BNP Paribas Sudan Human Rights Lawsuit
The jury awarded a total of $20.75 million:
- Entesar Osman Kashef: $7.3 million
- Abulgasim Abdalla: $6.7 million
- Turjuman Adam: $6.75 million
All three are now U.S. citizens who were displaced from Sudan. They testified about being tortured, burned with cigarettes, slashed with knives, and sexually assaulted by Sudanese soldiers and Janjaweed militia members.6Le Monde. BNP Paribas Shares Plummet After US Verdict on Complicity of Sudan Atrocities The jury determined that BNP Paribas had functioned as the de facto central bank of Sudan between 1997 and 2007 and that its financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the plaintiffs’ injuries by enabling the regime to purchase weapons and sustain its war economy.7DiCello Levitt LLP. Historic Human Rights Verdict Against Global Bank
Several evidentiary rulings shaped the trial. Judge Hellerstein ruled that BNP Paribas’s prior criminal guilty plea and the admissions that came with it were admissible, subject to precise wording.8Justia. Kashef v. BNP Paribas, Order Regulating Proceedings The bank also sought to exclude references to international terrorism and filed a pretrial motion alleging misconduct by plaintiffs’ counsel, which the court denied.9CourtListener. Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA Docket After the verdict, BNP Paribas said publicly that it had not been permitted to introduce “important evidence” at trial and called the result “clearly wrong.”10Los Angeles Times. US Jury Issues $20M Verdict Against French Bank BNP Paribas Over Sudanese Atrocities
Final Judgment and the Appeal
BNP Paribas moved to overturn or reduce the award, arguing that it was inconsistent with Swiss law and alleging that witness coaching had tainted the trial. On January 7, 2026, Judge Hellerstein rejected those arguments, declined to trim the verdict, and entered final judgment for $21 million.11Law360. Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA The same day, BNP Paribas confirmed it was “thoroughly prepared” to appeal, calling the verdict “fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law” and citing what it described as an “erroneous application of relevant Swiss law.”12BNP Paribas. Statement from BNP Paribas on Sudan Litigation
The appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In May 2026, BNP Paribas argued in its appellate brief that the verdict rested on a fundamental misinterpretation of Swiss law.13New York Law Journal. BNP Paribas Tells US Appeals Court That Landmark $21M Human Rights Verdict Conflicts with Swiss Law On June 1, 2026, the U.S. government intervened on the bank’s side. U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton filed a brief urging the Second Circuit to vacate the verdict, arguing that Judge Hellerstein had failed to give “careful and respectful consideration” to the Swiss government’s interpretation of its own laws when a Swiss official raised concerns during the proceedings.14New York Law Journal. US Govt Backs BNP Paribas Appeal of $21M Human Rights Verdict The same U.S. government had criminally prosecuted BNP Paribas just over a decade earlier.
What the Verdict Covers, and What It Doesn’t
The $21 million judgment runs to the three bellwether plaintiffs only. BNP Paribas maintains that the result “should not have broader application,” while class counsel say work remains to extend the jury’s liability finding to the rest of the certified class of more than 20,000.4Hausfeld LLP. Kashef v. BNP Paribas Sudan Human Rights Lawsuit Class members who wanted to seek individual compensation were required to complete opt-in forms and questionnaires by July 1, 2025.15PR Newswire. Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights The plaintiffs are represented by Hausfeld LLP, Hecht Partners LLP, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and DiCello Levitt LLP.16Hausfeld LLP. Following $20.75 Million Verdict to Sudanese Refugees, BNPP Downplays Significance of Judgment
This case is also separate from the diplomatic settlement in which Sudan itself agreed in October 2020 to pay $335 million into a fund for victims of terrorism-related attacks, in exchange for dismissal of roughly $10.2 billion in default judgments and restoration of its sovereign immunity in U.S. courts.17Sudan Embassy. Sudan and United States Execute Historic Bilateral Agreement18Southwestern Law School. Sudan Claims Settlement Agreement That agreement resolved claims against the Sudanese government. The BNP Paribas lawsuit targets the bank as a private-sector accomplice and was not resolved by it.
Background: The 2014 Guilty Plea That Anchors the Civil Case
On June 30, 2014, BNP Paribas agreed to plead guilty to a one-count felony for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act by processing transactions for sanctioned entities in Sudan, Iran, and Cuba between 2004 and 2012. The bank admitted processing more than $8.8 billion in sanctioned transactions through the U.S. financial system, roughly $6.4 billion of it tied to Sudanese entities.19U.S. Department of Justice. BNP Paribas Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay $8.9 Billion for Illegally Processing Financial Transactions
BNP Paribas used a network of intermediary “satellite banks” to disguise the involvement of Sudanese financial institutions in dollar-clearing transactions and systematically stripped references to sanctioned entities from payment messages so U.S. regulators and correspondent banks would not flag the transfers.19U.S. Department of Justice. BNP Paribas Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay $8.9 Billion for Illegally Processing Financial Transactions Internal communications showed that employees knew the Sudanese banks they serviced supported a government linked to terrorism and human rights abuses, yet transactions continued.20Just Security. USA v. BNP Paribas Statement of Facts
On May 1, 2015, a federal judge sentenced BNP Paribas to five years of probation and ordered it to forfeit $8.834 billion and pay a $140 million criminal fine, for a total federal penalty of roughly $8.97 billion. Additional penalties from regulators were credited against the federal forfeiture, including $2.24 billion to the New York State Department of Financial Services and $508 million to the Federal Reserve.21U.S. Department of Justice. BNP Paribas Sentenced for Conspiring to Violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act As part of the New York settlement, the bank also had to suspend its U.S. dollar-clearing operations for one year and terminate 13 employees, including senior executives.19U.S. Department of Justice. BNP Paribas Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay $8.9 Billion for Illegally Processing Financial Transactions
Background: The Darfur Atrocities at Issue
The underlying atrocities occurred primarily during the Darfur conflict, which erupted in 2003 and continued for years under President Omar al-Bashir. The Sudanese military, the Janjaweed militia, police, and the National Intelligence and Security Service carried out a coordinated campaign targeting the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. By some estimates, more than 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million driven from their homes in Darfur alone.10Los Angeles Times. US Jury Issues $20M Verdict Against French Bank BNP Paribas Over Sudanese Atrocities Amnesty International has estimated total civilian deaths exceeding 500,000 and documented the use of suspected chemical weapons against civilians as late as 2016.22Amnesty International. Why Former Sudan President Omar al-Bashir Must Not Escape Justice
The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for al-Bashir in 2009 and 2010 on ten counts, including three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of war crimes.23International Criminal Court. Al Bashir Case, ICC-02/05-01/09 He was the first sitting head of state wanted by the ICC and the first person it charged with genocide.24International Criminal Court. Darfur, Sudan Situation Al-Bashir was ousted in a 2019 military coup but has never been surrendered. As of 2026, the warrants remain unenforced and his case sits in the pretrial stage, since the ICC cannot try defendants in absentia. In a related ICC case, Janjaweed militia leader Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, who surrendered voluntarily in 2020, was convicted in October 2025 of 27 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 20 years in prison in December 2025.