Due Diligence: Major MNCs are still on the hook

US jury finds BNP Paribas liable for financing Sudan genocide, awarding $20million in damages to three Sudanese refugees. Besides CSRD and CSDDD there is a nexus of other national laws that often involve tax and social security regulations

The Key Points: Even as EU due diligence requirements may be scaled back under CSRD and CSDDD laws, multinational corporations remain exposed through other national laws involving tax and social security regulations. A US jury found BNP Paribas liable on 17 October for financing Sudan genocide, awarding $20 million in damages to three Sudanese refugees for civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, negligence, and wrongful death claims. The case references BNP Paribas's 2014 guilty plea for processing $8.8 billion in illegal financial transactions to embargoed nations between 2004 and 2012.

Why This Matters: This represents the first civil verdict where genocide victims successfully recovered damages against a bank that financed genocide, establishing important legal precedent. The ruling demonstrates how corporations cannot escape human rights accountability simply through regulatory rollbacks, as alternative legal frameworks remain in place. The case highlights ongoing corporate liability for supply chain violations and sanctions breaches that may have occurred years earlier.

What Might Happen Next: The case could enable over 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the United States to seek billions more in recovery damages. BNP Paribas plans to appeal the verdict, arguing it was based on a distortion of Swiss law and that important evidence was excluded. The judge will determine compensation arrangements for the remaining members of the plaintiff class in coming months.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

In a statement BNP Paribas said:

“BNP Paribas believes that this result is clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict, which is based on a distortion of controlling Swiss law and ignores important evidence the bank was not permitted to introduce. The verdict is specific to these three plaintiffs, and we strongly believe it should not have broader application beyond this decision. We believe this verdict should be overturned on appeal.”