In a shocking turn of events, a New York jury has determined that BNP Paribas, one of France's largest banks, played a pivotal role in enabling the Sudanese government to carry out heinous acts of genocide. By providing essential banking services that blatantly violated American sanctions, this monumental ruling has sent ripples through the financial world and raised serious questions about accountability in the banking sector.

The eight-member jury sided with three brave plaintiffs, who were once victims of the brutal regime in Sudan. After an emotional trial, they were awarded over $20 million in damages. Their harrowing testimonies revealed a nightmare of torture, sexual assault, and unimaginable suffering at the hands of Sudanese soldiers and the notorious Janjaweed militia.

Now American citizens, the plaintiffs—a man and a woman who fought through years of trauma—described their experiences in vivid detail to the federal court in Manhattan. The woman recounted the horrors she faced, including sexual assault, while the men spoke of being tortured and marked with scars from cigarette burns and knife slashes.

In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for BNP Paribas insisted the verdict is “clearly wrong,” asserting that it relies on a misinterpretation of Swiss law and disregards crucial evidence that could have changed the case’s outcome. “We plan to appeal this verdict vigorously,” they stated, emphasizing the bank's commitment to its legal standing.

Bobby DiCello, the plaintiffs' attorney, hailed the decision as a significant victory for justice. He passionately articulated that financial institutions like BNP Paribas cannot simply ignore the consequences of their actions. “Our clients lost everything to a campaign of destruction fueled by U.S. dollars, and BNP Paribas facilitated that destruction,” he declared, underscoring the bank’s complicity in the atrocities committed.

BNP Paribas had been conducting business in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, during which time it issued letters of credit that allowed the Sudanese government to meet its import and export obligations. The plaintiffs argued that these financial assurances helped sustain a regime that was engaged in ethnic cleansing, allowing it to continue exporting vital commodities like cotton and oil, thus profiting from a cycle of violence against its own citizens.