U.S. Court Holds French Bank Liable for Atrocities Committed in Sudan

 

A New York jury has ruled that the commercial activities of the French banking group BNP Paribas in Sudan contributed to atrocities committed during the rule of former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.

 

 

The trial, which began on September 9, was decided by an eight-member jury after hearing complaints from three Sudanese plaintiffs who witnessed horrific abuses perpetrated by Sudanese soldiers and the Janjaweed militia.

 

The plaintiffs — two men and a woman, all now U.S. citizens — told a federal court in Manhattan that they had been tortured, burned with cigarette butts, stabbed, and, in the woman’s case, sexually assaulted.

 

“I have no family left,” testified Intisar Osman Kasher, 41, during the proceedings in New York.

 

A BNP Paribas spokesperson told AFP that the verdict was “clearly wrong” and said there were “strong grounds for appeal, as the judgment relies on a misinterpretation of Swiss law and ignores key evidence the bank was not allowed to present.”

 

Plaintiffs’ attorney Bobby DiCello hailed the decision as “a victory for justice and accountability,” adding: “The jury recognized that financial institutions cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. Our clients lost everything in a campaign of destruction fueled by U.S. dollars and facilitated by BNP Paribas.”

In closing arguments, the plaintiffs’ lawyer said the case had “exposed the secret that an international bank — BNP Paribas — illegally rescued, protected, financed, and sustained a dictator’s economy.” He added that the bank “supported and destroyed the lives of these three survivors.”

 

BNP Paribas, which conducted business operations in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, provided letters of credit that enabled Sudan to fulfill its import and export obligations.

 

According to the plaintiffs, these guarantees allowed Al-Bashir’s regime to continue exporting cotton, oil, and other commodities — earning billions of dollars from buyers. They argue that these transactions helped finance the violence committed by Sudanese authorities against parts of the population.

 

However, BNP Paribas’ defense lawyer Danny James insisted there was “no connection between the bank’s conduct and what happened to these three plaintiffs.”

 

The defense team further argued that the bank’s operations in Sudan complied with European law, noting that international institutions such as the IMF also partnered with the Sudanese government during the same period.
The defense lawyers also affirmed that the bank had no knowledge of human rights violations.

 

BNP Paribas’ attorney Barry Berke added that the plaintiffs “would have suffered the same injuries without BNP Paribas… Sudan would have committed and did commit human rights abuses without oil and without BNP Paribas.”