TL;DR. On 17 October 2025, a federal jury in New York held BNP Paribas civilly liable for knowingly assisting Sudan’s government under Omar al-Bashir while it committed international crimes against civilians, awarding more than $20 million to three Sudanese refugees. The case was decided under Swiss law because the bank ran its Sudan business through Geneva. On 23 August 2026, the bank filed its opening appeal brief, alleging errors of law and excluded evidence, backed by amicus submissions including the Swiss and US governments. Liability stands at first instance; the appeal is pending.
A first-of-its-kind verdict against a global bank
The case is Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., No. 1:16-cv-03228, before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. After nine years of litigation, the jury found that France’s largest bank consciously assisted the Sudanese government as it committed violent crimes against civilians between 2002 and 2008 — the height of the Darfur conflict, which the United States formally described as genocide in September 2004. The jury awarded roughly $20.75 million to three plaintiffs — Entesar Osman Kashef, Abulgasim Abdalla and Turjuman Adam — refugees now living in the United States who testified about the atrocities they survived.
The full court record is public: Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA docket on CourtListener. Judge Hellerstein later denied the bank’s post-trial motions and entered judgment, finding the trial evidence gave the jury ample basis to conclude the bank’s conduct enabled the regime’s crimes. Plaintiffs’ counsel have moved for prejudgment interest that would lift the award above $40 million, and say the verdict opens a path for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the US.
Why Swiss law decided an American trial
BNP Paribas ran its Sudanese operations out of its Geneva subsidiary, so the court applied Article 50(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations — liability for knowingly cooperating in another’s unlawful act. Plaintiffs had to show the regime’s illicit acts, the bank’s conscious assistance (it knew or should have known it was contributing), and causation of their harm, under the Swiss “preponderant likelihood” standard set out in Judge Hellerstein’s 8 September 2025 opinion. Trial evidence described BNP Paribas as Sudan’s de facto banker — for years effectively its only gateway to international finance, handling flows in the tens of billions of dollars.
The 2014 guilty plea that set the stage
This civil verdict rests on an established record. In June 2014, BNP Paribas pleaded guilty in the US and agreed to pay $8.97 billion — then a record penalty — for processing billions of dollars for sanctioned Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities, per the Department of Justice announcement. We traced that thread in “BNP Paribas: what the courts actually say — from Sudan to the CumCum files”.
23 August 2026: the bank’s appeal
In a statement dated 23 August 2026, BNP Paribas said it had filed its opening brief with the US Court of Appeals seeking reversal. The bank argues the trial court “seriously misapplied Swiss law” and denied it the chance to present what it calls essential evidence that the transactions were permitted under Swiss and European law. It also points to amicus curiae submissions filed on 29 May by prominent third parties — including the Swiss and US governments, legal scholars and professional bodies — supporting its legal position. To be precise: civil liability was established at first instance; the bank contests it, and the appeal is pending.
Why it matters beyond this case
A jury holding a global bank financially answerable for a client regime’s atrocities is a warning shot for the whole industry — one more entry in a legal ledger that already includes the frozen Exane Intégrale UCITS fund and the sanctions history we detailed in our earlier investigation. Each time, the same question: where were the safeguards?
Sources
Court docket, Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA, 1:16-cv-03228 (S.D.N.Y.) — CourtListener · Hellerstein opinion, 8 September 2025 — Justia · Forbes, 19 October 2025 · Peters & Peters · Hausfeld (plaintiffs’ co-counsel) · US DoJ, 30 June 2014 · BNP Paribas statement, 23 August 2026 · BNP Paribas group position.
FAQ
What did the jury actually decide?
That BNP Paribas is civilly liable under Article 50(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations for knowingly assisting Sudan’s government while it committed crimes against civilians between 2002 and 2008, and must pay about $20.75 million to three plaintiffs.
Is this a criminal conviction for genocide?
No. It is a civil damages verdict. The genocide designation for Darfur was made by the US government in 2004; the jury ruled on the bank’s civil liability for assisting the regime’s crimes.
Where does the appeal stand?
BNP Paribas filed its opening appellate brief on 23 August 2026, arguing errors of Swiss law and excluded evidence, with amicus support including the Swiss and US governments. The appeals court has not yet ruled.
How does the 2014 settlement relate?
In 2014 BNP Paribas pleaded guilty and paid $8.97 billion for processing transactions for sanctioned Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities. The Kashef trial addressed the human consequences of those same financial channels.
By Patrick Lancier
Leave a Reply