US Court Denies Intervention in SEC’s Case Against Adani
In a recent ruling, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected a New Jersey resident’s bid to intervene in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proceedings against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani. The SEC accuses the Adanis of involvement in an alleged bribery scheme. The case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, has garnered significant attention.
On July 15, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis dismissed the petition filed by Ashu Shukla, who appeared without legal representation. Shukla claimed that ‘US deep state actors’ were pursuing a ‘malicious agenda’ against the Adanis. The court found no merit in Shukla’s claims, stating that he failed to demonstrate any legally recognizable interest in the SEC proceedings. Judge Garaufis remarked, “Shukla’s allegations are not credible because they are conclusory and speculative.”
Shukla argued that the proposed settlement between the SEC and the Adanis would adversely impact global investors, businesses, and the public interest. He alleged a coordinated effort involving US and Indian officials to extract bribes from Adani, questioning the involvement of SEC and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, as well as the engagement of Robert J. Giuffra Jr. as Adani’s attorney.
The court found Shukla’s assertions to be vague, noting that they were based largely on his social media posts, including a perplexing peace plan for the Gaza conflict. Shukla failed to identify any specific public interest that might be harmed by the settlement or provide credible evidence of coordination between US and Indian officials. The court also noted the absence of any specific allegations against Indian actors or details of the malicious agenda.
Judge Garaufis denied both intervention as of right and permissive intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He concluded, “The court does not believe that the proposed intervention will contribute to the development of the underlying factual issues and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented. If anything, it would do the opposite.” The court registry was instructed to reject any further filings by Shukla in the case.
More Read
The indictment against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta, and others alleged a conspiracy to bribe Indian state officials to secure a 12-gigawatt solar power project. Allegedly, bribes amounting to ₹2,029 crore (approximately $265 million) were promised, with ₹1,750 crore earmarked for officials in Andhra Pradesh to secure 7 gigawatts of solar power.
Subsequently, the DOJ sought to dismiss the indictment against all accused, but Judge Garaufis requested justification for this decision. The DOJ’s response described the prosecution as a “name and shame” indictment, lacking any realistic prospect of trial, as it primarily involved Indian nationals and concerned Indian contracts.
On July 8, Judge Garaufis asserted that while considering a motion under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court must ensure that the government’s reasons for dismissal are substantial. He requested an affidavit from Adani to confirm the absence of any undisclosed agreements before ruling on the DOJ’s application to dismiss the indictment.
