In a recent landmark case, BNP Paribas S.A., the most prominent bank in France, has been hit with a hefty verdict of almost $21 million by a federal jury in New York. The bank was accused of providing the Sudanese government with access to the U.S. financial system during a period of egregious human rights abuses two decades ago.
U.S. Citizens Awarded Millions in Damages
The recipients of the verdict are a woman and two men, all U.S. citizens who had to leave Sudan after being displaced and losing their homes and property. Each was granted between $6.7 million and $7.3 million on Friday after about four hours of jury deliberation.
In a pretrial memo dated August 28, the plaintiffs stated their case against BNP Paribas, claiming that the bank facilitated the Sudanese government as it executed “one of the most notorious campaigns of persecution in modern history.”
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Adam Levitt, expressed satisfaction with the progress towards justice, highlighting the importance of holding the bank accountable for its reprehensible actions.
BNP Paribas to Appeal Verdict
However, a spokesperson for BNP Paribas has argued against the verdict, asserting that the bank was not allowed to introduce key evidence and that there are strong grounds for an appeal.
The bank’s defense rests on the argument that Sudan had other financial resources and that the bank was not knowingly complicit in the human rights abuses committed during the reign of former President Omar al-Bashir.
The Role of BNP Paribas in Sudan’s Atrocities
BNP Paribas reportedly granted Sudanese authorities access to international money markets from 2002 to 2008. This period saw the death of as many as 300,000 people and the displacement of 2.7 million from their homes in the Darfur region due to government actions.
Former president Al-Bashir is currently detained in a military-run facility in northern Sudan, facing charges including genocide from the International Criminal Court. However, he has not been extradited to face trial in The Hague.
Despite these charges, lawyers for BNP Paribas maintained that the bank has no liability for the human rights abuses in Sudan, arguing that these atrocities began before and continued after the bank’s involvement in the country.
The bank’s defense team argued that BNP Paribas “never participated in Sudanese military transactions in any way” and that there is no concrete evidence linking any specific transaction to the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Impact on Future Cases
Adam Levitt, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, sees this case as a “bellwether trial”, with findings that could potentially apply to other Sudanese refugees, including 23,000 U.S. citizens who are members of a class-action lawsuit.
However, the BNP spokesperson argued that the verdict applies specifically to the three plaintiffs and should not have broader implications beyond this decision.
In 2014, BNP Paribas reached a nearly $9 billion settlement by pleading guilty in New York and admitting to processing billions of dollars in transactions for clients in Sudan, Cuba, and Iran.
This case highlights the complex intersection of finance, law, and human rights, and the potential implications for other similar cases in the future.
