FOLLOW US

BNP Paribas is urging a New York federal judge to dismantle a $21 million bellwether verdict awarded to three Sudanese refugees, arguing the jury’s findings clash with Swiss law — the legal framework governing the case — and cannot hold the French bank responsible for the atrocities of Omar al-Bashir’s regime.

Bank Seeks Judgment as a Matter of Law

In a motion filed Friday in the Southern District of New York, BNP demanded judgment in its favor or, alternatively, a new trial or amended judgment. The bank insists that under Swiss Code of Obligations, it cannot be deemed an accomplice to the Sudanese government’s crimes, which include torture, rape, murder and large-scale persecution under the longtime dictator.

The three plaintiffs — part of a class that could reach 23,000 members — secured the nearly $21 million jury award in October. Their lawsuit alleges that beginning in 1997, BNP funneled $20 billion into Sudan over a decade, constructing a clandestine “shadow banking system” that empowered al-Bashir’s brutal rule.

BNP maintains it believed those transactions supported legitimate commerce benefiting Sudanese citizens and denies knowing participation in any abuses.

Why Swiss Law Is Central

BNP’s motion hinges on Article 50 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, a provision enabling full compensation from one wrongdoer when multiple tortfeasors are liable. But the bank argues that accomplice liability is impossible without a “main perpetrator,” and under Swiss law a foreign sovereign cannot be held liable for torts committed abroad.

Since Sudan’s government cannot be treated as a tortfeasor under Swiss law, BNP says the plaintiffs' theory collapses.

Bank Argues All Three Elements of Article 50 Fail

Even if Article 50 could stand independently, BNP contends the plaintiffs failed to meet its three required elements:

1. Illicit Act by a Main Perpetrator

Swiss law does not apply extraterritorially. Acts committed by a foreign government in its sovereign capacity — “even alleged murder, rape or torture,” the motion states — cannot constitute illicit acts under Swiss tort principles. Without a culpable main perpetrator, BNP argues, accomplice liability is legally impossible.

2. BNP’s “Conscious Assistance”

BNP claims it complied with Switzerland’s embargo prohibiting financing for arms purchases. The bank says it had no relationship with the plaintiffs, no role in Sudan’s violent actions, and no responsibility for the conduct of a foreign government. Thus, it argues, it neither knowingly contributed to nor should have foreseen participation in any illicit acts.