In Kashef v. BNP Paribas, a Manhattan federal jury found the French bank liable in October 2025 for helping finance atrocities committed by the Sudanese government of Omar al-Bashir, awarding a combined $20.75 million to three Sudanese refugees who are now U.S. citizens. It is the first time a major international bank has been held civilly liable in a U.S. court for bankrolling a regime’s campaign of mass violence, and the bank is now appealing.
What BNP Paribas Did in Sudan
BNP Paribas began serving as a primary banking partner for the Sudanese government in 1997, during the years the al-Bashir regime carried out mass killings, rapes, village burnings, and water poisoning against Black African civilians in Darfur and southern Sudan. The Darfur conflict alone killed nearly 400,000 people and displaced millions.
Between 2004 and 2012, the bank moved more than $8.8 billion through the U.S. financial system on behalf of sanctioned entities in Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. About $6.4 billion of that flowed for Sudanese entities in a single twelve-month stretch from July 2006 to June 2007. To get past U.S. compliance filters, BNP Paribas routed transactions through “satellite banks” and stripped identifying information from wire transfers.
In June 2014, BNP Paribas pleaded guilty to federal and state felonies for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. It paid roughly $8.9 billion in forfeitures and fines, one of the largest criminal penalties ever imposed on a bank.
How the Case Reached Trial
Sudanese refugees and asylum seekers filed the civil case on April 29, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, docketed as 16-cv-03228. They brought twenty claims under New York tort law, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and aiding and abetting battery, assault, and wrongful death. They did not sue under the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act because Supreme Court decisions had shut off corporate liability under those federal statutes. Jurisdiction rested on diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Their theory: the bank’s services were a “natural and adequate cause” of their injuries because those services let the regime buy weapons, sustain its oil-driven war economy, and finance ethnic cleansing.
The district court dismissed the suit at first, citing the act of state doctrine and the statute of limitations. In 2019, the Second Circuit unanimously reversed. Writing at 925 F.3d 53, the appeals court held the act of state doctrine did not apply for three reasons. The case asked only whether the atrocities happened, not whether they were valid policy. The acts violated Sudan’s own constitution. And genocide, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing violate jus cogens norms of international law and can never be treated as legitimate sovereign acts. On timeliness, the court applied a New York statute allowing civil suits within one year of a related criminal conviction; the bank’s May 1, 2015 conviction made the April 29, 2016 filing timely.
Back before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, the court certified a class of all refugees or asylees admitted by the United States who formerly lived in Sudan or South Sudan between November 4, 1997, and December 31, 2011. The class is estimated at about 23,000 people. BNP Paribas tried to appeal certification under Rule 23(f); the Second Circuit refused, and in March 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The Bellwether Trial and Verdict
Trial began with jury selection on September 9, 2025, and ran five weeks before Judge Hellerstein. It was a bellwether: three named plaintiffs tested the claims that would inform the broader class. Entesar Osman Kashef, Abulgasim Abdalla, and Turjuman Adam each testified about atrocities they suffered under the al-Bashir regime.
Lead trial counsel Bobby DiCello of DiCello Levitt argued that BNP Paribas had functioned as Sudan’s de facto central bank, knowingly routing billions through its Geneva office to help the regime evade U.S. sanctions. On cross-examination, the bank’s own representatives acknowledged that BNP Paribas had knowingly violated U.S. sanctions. Plaintiffs’ counsel, which also included Hausfeld, Hecht Partners, and Zuckerman Spaeder, told the jury the bank’s services amounted to “a blank cheque” for violence.
On October 17, 2025, the eight-member jury found BNP Paribas liable, concluding that its financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the plaintiffs’ harm. The jury awarded:
- Entesar Osman Kashef: $7.3 million
- Turjuman Adam: $6.75 million
- Abulgasim Abdalla: $6.7 million
BNP Paribas moved to set aside or reduce the verdict. On January 7, 2026, Judge Hellerstein rejected the motion, finding the bank had not shown a “serious erroneous result” or a “miscarriage of justice,” and he entered final judgment the same day.
The Appeal
BNP Paribas filed its notice of appeal in the Second Circuit on February 6, 2026, docketed as Case No. 26-341. Its central argument is that the district court misread Swiss law, which the court had determined governed the claims. The bank says Article 50 of the Swiss Code of Obligations only apportions damages and does not create an independent basis for accomplice liability, and that Swiss joint-and-several liability requires the primary wrongdoer to be independently liable, something the court never established for the Sudanese government.
The bank also challenges evidentiary rulings, arguing the court admitted its 2014 U.S. guilty plea while excluding evidence that its conduct complied with Swiss, EU, and U.N. sanctions regimes. It alleges witness tampering and attorney misconduct by plaintiffs’ lead counsel, and says the court wrongly denied an evidentiary hearing on those claims.
Two governments have lined up behind the bank. The U.S. government, through U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York, filed a proposed amicus brief on May 29, 2026, arguing the trial judge failed to give “careful and respectful consideration” to the Swiss government’s formal interpretation of its own laws. Swiss counsel, appearing for the Swiss government, argues the trial court “invented a faux-Swiss cause of action” that ignores fundamental principles of Swiss tort law.
BNP Paribas maintains the verdict is limited to the three named plaintiffs and should not be extrapolated to the class. The bank made no financial provision in the third quarter of 2025 for potential exposure from the suit.
What the Verdict Means for Other Sudanese Refugees
Because the trial was a bellwether, the $20.75 million award goes only to the three plaintiffs. It does not automatically entitle any other class member to damages. Class members seeking individual compensation had to complete an opt-in form and an online questionnaire covering their background, immigration history, and specific harms suffered between November 4, 1997 and December 31, 2011, including violence, home invasion, sexual assault, or harm to family members. The submission deadline was set in mid-2025.
No settlement framework or distribution plan for the broader class has been announced. Judge Hellerstein has suggested the case lends itself to settlement, but with the appeal fully briefed and both the U.S. and Swiss governments backing the bank, the outcome for the roughly 23,000-member class turns on what the Second Circuit decides.