US Court Demands Clarity on Indictment Dismissal for Gautam Adani
On July 8, a United States court mandated that Gautam Adani provide detailed information regarding any agreements made in relation to the government’s request to dismiss a bribery case indictment against him and seven others. This directive was issued by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who instructed Adani to submit an affidavit by July 15.
The court specifically asked Adani to address two critical questions:
- Are you aware of anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to, or accepted, by anyone, in connection with the dismissal of the Indictment?
- Are you aware of any agreement exchanging anything for the dismissal of the Indictment?
Background of the Case
This order followed a response from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who clarified that he alone decided to request the dismissal of all charges against Adani. McCotter dismissed reports suggesting that the dismissal was linked to an investment promise by Adani in the United States. However, the court noted McCotter’s response suggested the potential existence of undisclosed agreements involving the defendants.
Originally, the indictment alleged that Gautam Adani, alongside Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta, and others, orchestrated a plan to bribe Indian state officials to advance a project. The indictment claimed that bribes totaling ₹2,029 crore (approximately $265 million) were promised to officials of state electricity distribution companies, with ₹1,750 crore purportedly allocated to Andhra Pradesh officials to secure 7 gigawatts of solar power.
Judicial Proceedings and DOJ’s Stance
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) later moved to dismiss the indictment against all eight accused. On June 25, Judge Garaufis refused to immediately grant this request, asking the DOJ to justify its decision. In a July 4 response, the DOJ described the case as a “name and shame” indictment, initiated during the Biden administration’s final days with no realistic trial prospects. The DOJ argued the case was predominantly foreign, involving Indian nationals and contracts, and better handled within India’s jurisdiction.
More Read
The court reviewed a June 24 letter from the defendants explaining their consent to the government’s dismissal request. However, the letter did not indicate any agreement to invest in the United States in exchange for dropping charges.
Next Steps and Legal Representation
In his July 8 order, Judge Garaufis emphasized the necessity of verifying that the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal are substantial and authentic, as per Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since no undisclosed agreements were confirmed, the court requires Adani’s affidavit to ensure transparency before deciding on the DOJ’s dismissal request.
Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain are represented by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP co-chair Robert J. Giuffra Jr. and partner James McDonald. Notably, Robert Giuffra is President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. Other legal representatives include Timothy Sini (Nixon Peabody), Andrey Spektor (Norton Rose Fulbright) for Adani, Paul Schoeman (HSF Kramer) for Ranjit Gupta, Stephen Best (Brown Rudnick) for Cyril Cabanes, Winston Paes (Debevoise & Plimpton) for Saurabh Agarwal, and Aditya Singh (Singapore) and Michael Kendall (Boston) of White & Case for Deepak Malhotra. Rupesh Agarwal is represented by Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan of Steptoe (Washington, DC).
