DOJ Criticizes Previous Administration’s Indictment Against Adani
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has characterized the indictment against Gautam Adani and others as a “name-and-shame” action, suggested to be lacking any realistic chance of reaching trial. This assertion was made in a recent filing before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated July 4.
DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss Charges
The DOJ has requested the dismissal of all charges with prejudice in the case titled United States v. Gautam S. Adani and others. The department explained that the indictment, which was unsealed towards the end of the previous administration, seemed aimed at political maneuvering, with no real expectation of proceeding to trial. According to the DOJ, the indictment was a strategic move to place a problematic case in the hands of the incoming administration.
Judge’s Inquiry and DOJ’s Justification
Judge Garaufis had earlier labeled the DOJ’s motion to dismiss as “terse, bland, and conclusory,” prompting the department to elaborate on its reasoning. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who signed the filing, stated that the decision to drop the charges followed extensive consultations, internal discussions, and a thorough review of relevant materials, concluding that “the decision to seek dismissal was not a close call.”
Jurisdictional and Evidentiary Challenges
The DOJ emphasized the foreign nature of the allegations, which involved Indian nationals and transactions primarily conducted in India. The department argued that such cases should be managed by Indian authorities rather than U.S. prosecutors, as they could strain diplomatic relations and misallocate American resources. Furthermore, the DOJ noted that India had already investigated the allegations and found no misconduct as of 2026.
Securities and FCPA Charges Under Scrutiny
The DOJ was particularly critical of the securities charges, suggesting they were improperly based on failed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) claims. It declared that the securities charges should not have been pursued, citing significant jurisdictional issues and the lack of any financial losses to investors. The department also highlighted the absence of critical evidence and key witnesses, who were located in India.
More Read
Refuting Media Speculation and Ensuring Judicial Independence
The DOJ denied media allegations that the dismissal was influenced by promises of investment in the U.S. by the defendants. It clarified that the decision to dismiss the securities charges was made independently of such considerations. Furthermore, the DOJ cautioned against judicial oversight of prosecution dismissals, suggesting it could hinder future legal decisions and compromise the separation of powers.
Legal Representation and Case Background
Prominent legal representation has been provided for Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP’s co-chair Robert J. Giuffra Jr. and partner James McDonald. Other defendants in the case have been represented by attorneys from various reputable law firms.
The indictment accused Adani and associates of orchestrating a bribery scheme involving over ₹2,029 crore (approximately $265 million) to secure government contracts for solar power projects in India. However, the DOJ has urged the court to close the case, asserting that the charges should have been resolved or avoided entirely much earlier.
