US Attorney Clarifies Role in DOJ’s Decision to Dismiss Adani Case

United States Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr has refuted claims suggesting a contradiction in the Justice Department’s representation concerning the decision to dismiss the case against Indian industrialist Gautam Adani. In a sworn declaration submitted to the Eastern District of New York, Nocella affirmed that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter was the one who ultimately decided to discontinue the prosecution and dismiss the indictment.

This clarification was prompted by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, who pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the Justice Department’s statements. The court’s inquiry arose after Adani’s legal team presented an email dated May 11, in which Nocella rejected a proposal for a $10 billion investment in the United States as a potential resolution to the criminal charges.

Nocella confirmed his participation in various meetings related to the case, including discussions with defense counsel and internal meetings among Justice Department officials. Despite his involvement, Nocella maintained that McCotter was the final authority in deciding to seek the case’s dismissal. “After various discussions, Mr. McCotter exercised his authority as PADAG and determined that further resources should not be deployed in this prosecution and that the indictment should be dismissed,” Nocella stated.

Furthermore, Nocella denied contributing to the drafting of McCotter’s July 4 letter, which outlined the government’s rationale for dismissal. “I was not the decision maker for the motion to dismiss and I had no participation in drafting the McCotter Letter,” he clarified.

The court had previously questioned whether Nocella’s email indicated his involvement in determining the grounds for resolving the charges. To address this, Judge Garaufis asked Nocella to confirm whether McCotter’s stated reasons were the genuine and complete basis for the dismissal. Nocella supported McCotter’s account by stating, “I have no basis to believe that the reasons advanced by Mr. McCotter for the proposed dismissal are not the real grounds upon which the application is based.”

In parallel, Adani filed an affidavit on July 15, stating he was unaware of any quid pro quo tied to the DOJ’s decision. He claimed ignorance regarding any promises, offers, or agreements related to the withdrawal of the indictment. This affidavit was in response to the court’s request for clarification on whether Adani’s $10 billion investment proposal was linked to the DOJ’s decision.

Background on the case reveals that the US government’s indictment accused Gautam Adani and others of devising a plan to bribe Indian state officials to secure a 12 gigawatt solar power project. Allegations included promises of bribes amounting to ₹2,029 crore (approximately $265 million), with a significant portion allegedly allocated to officials in Andhra Pradesh.

The DOJ later sought to dismiss the indictment against all defendants. However, Judge Garaufis did not immediately grant the request and required the DOJ to explain its reasons for the dismissal. The DOJ’s July 4 response characterized the prosecution as a “name and shame” indictment, initiated during the Biden administration’s final days, with little prospect of a trial. The DOJ argued that the case was largely foreign, involving Indian nationals and contracts.

Judge Garaufis highlighted the need for substantial reasons for dismissal according to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In pursuit of transparency, the court sought Adani’s affidavit to ensure no undisclosed agreements influenced the dismissal application.

Legal representation for Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain includes Sullivan & Cromwell LLP’s Robert J. Giuffra Jr and James McDonald. Notably, Giuffra also serves as a personal lawyer for former US President Donald Trump. Additional legal counsel includes Timothy Sini (Nixon Peabody), Andrey Spektor (Norton Rose Fulbright), and others representing co-defendants.