- In a dramatic reversal, Justice Department tells federal court prosecution was flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with current enforcement priorities
- DOJ says securities and FCPA charges lacked a sound legal foundation, investors suffered no losses and alleged conduct overwhelmingly belonged within India’s jurisdiction
- Government rejects reports of any investment-linked deal with Adani Group, urges judge to end uncertainty by dismissing indictment with prejudice
- SEO Keywords: Gautam Adani, US Department of Justice, Adani Case, DOJ Filing, Adani Green Energy, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Securities Fraud, Nicholas Garaufis, Trump Administration, US Federal Court
NE BUSINESS BUREAU
NEW YORK, JULY 4
In a significant legal and business development with potential international ramifications, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has urged a federal court to permanently dismiss the criminal case against Indian industrialist Gautam Adani and seven others, asserting that the prosecution was legally untenable, diplomatically counterproductive and should never have been initiated.
In a strongly worded 10-page submission before the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the DOJ defended its decision to seek dismissal with prejudice, maintaining that the charges were inconsistent with the current administration’s enforcement priorities and lacked a sustainable legal basis.
The filing came after US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis sought a detailed explanation from the department, describing its earlier request for dismissal as “terse, bland, and conclusory.”
Making one of its strongest observations, the Justice Department stated, “The defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago—or never brought in the first place.”
The case originated in 2024, when prosecutors under the previous administration alleged that Gautam Adani and others were involved in a scheme to pay nearly US$250 million in alleged bribes to Indian government officials while misleading investors during fundraising activities by Adani Green Energy Ltd.
However, after an extensive internal review, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter concluded that the prosecution lacked sufficient legal and factual justification.
“The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call,” McCotter wrote, explaining that his assessment followed months of consultations with defence lawyers, detailed review of submissions and an independent legal evaluation.
The DOJ identified six principal reasons for abandoning the prosecution, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, Indian authorities had already examined the allegations without finding actionable misconduct, investors had not suffered financial losses, crucial witnesses and evidence were located overseas, the defendants were unlikely to appear before a US court and the prosecution faced substantial evidentiary challenges.
Summing up the department’s position, McCotter stated, “This is a foreign case.”
Describing the underlying allegations, he wrote that they involved “several Indians (with maybe a European or two) allegedly trying to bribe other Indians by paying the Indian government via complex Indian rebate programs to get Indian contracts to provide Indian electricity to Indians in India.”
He further observed, “The United States pretending to be the world police can cause diplomatic strife and also wastes resources better spent on domestic concerns. India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington.”
The DOJ also dismantled the criminal securities fraud allegations against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Cyril Cabanes, arguing that the alleged conduct occurred almost entirely outside the United States and failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements necessary for criminal prosecution under US securities laws.
According to the department, investors did not incur losses because the financial instruments involved had either been fully repaid or continued to be serviced.
The filing also questioned whether statements cited in the indictment could constitute criminal fraud, characterising many of them as corporate “platitudes” and “puffery” that sophisticated institutional investors would not ordinarily rely upon.
In another key observation, McCotter stated, “The securities charges should never have been brought,” adding that, at most, the allegations could have warranted civil—not criminal—proceedings.
The DOJ further argued that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) charges no longer aligned with the department’s revised enforcement priorities outlined in Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum, which directs prosecutors to prioritise cases involving US national security, organised crime, significant misconduct or harm to American companies.
The filing stated, “The alleged conduct did not involve criminal organizations, did not have any effect on US companies, did not in any way implicate national security, was not egregious, and has been the subject of investigations in India. Under the Blanche Memorandum, the FCPA charges should have been dismissed a year ago.”
McCotter also firmly rejected media reports suggesting that the DOJ’s decision was influenced by proposed investments by the Adani Group in the United States.
Calling such allegations baseless, he stated, “I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments. The mention of potential investments could not have played any role.”
Defending prosecutorial discretion, the DOJ warned that requiring courts to scrutinise internal decisions to abandon criminal cases could expose privileged deliberations, discourage prosecutors from withdrawing weak cases and undermine the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority over criminal prosecutions.
Concluding its submission, the department urged the court to bring the proceedings to an immediate close, stating, “In short, there was absolutely nothing improper with the Department’s as-filed dismissal motion.”
The filing represents one of the strongest acknowledgements by the US government that a high-profile international prosecution lacked sufficient legal merit, a development that could have significant implications for cross-border corporate enforcement, foreign investment sentiment and the evolving application of US anti-corruption and securities laws.
