**
Jury Delivers Historic Verdict
A federal jury in Manhattan has returned a landmark verdict against BNP Paribas, finding the French banking giant liable for helping Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that knowingly violated U.S. sanctions. According to reports from the trial, the jury ordered the bank to pay a combined $20.5 million to three Sudanese plaintiffs who testified about the human rights abuses they suffered.
Opening the Floodgates for Claims
The verdict is reportedly seen as a pivotal moment that could enable over 20,000 Sudanese refugees currently in the United States to seek billions of dollars in collective damages. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the bank’s actions were instrumental in the atrocities. “Our clients lost everything to a campaign of destruction fueled by U.S. dollars, that BNP Paribas facilitated and that should have been stopped,” said Bobby DiCello, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, according to the trial testimony. This case highlights significant industry developments in corporate accountability.
Bank Vows to Appeal
A spokesman for BNP Paribas stated that the bank believes the verdict is “clearly wrong” and announced plans to appeal. The spokesman contended that the decision was based on a distortion of controlling Swiss law and that important evidence was excluded. This legal stance is part of broader market trends where corporations challenge expansive liability rulings.
Legal Foundation and Previous Sanctions
The trial, which lasted five weeks before U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, focused on whether the bank’s financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by survivors. The report states that Judge Hellerstein had previously noted facts showing a relationship between the bank’s services and the abuses perpetrated by the government under former President Omar al-Bashir. This case follows the bank’s 2014 guilty plea and a $8.97 billion penalty for violating U.S. sanctions against several countries, including Sudan.
Broader Implications and Context
The ruling emerged from a proposed class action brought by U.S. residents who fled conflicts in regions like Darfur and the Nuba Mountains in Sudan. The U.S. government had officially recognized the situation as a genocide in 2004. Analysts suggest this verdict could influence how financial institutions manage compliance and could intersect with related innovations in regulatory technology. Furthermore, the case’s reliance on legal principles may reflect recent technology and data used in presenting evidence, while the corporate response aligns with industry developments in legal defense strategies. All information is sourced from the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Disclaimer: This article is based on court documents and reports from the proceedings. All claims and statements are attributed to the involved parties or the official court records.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
