A US judge has ordered Indian billionaire Gautam Adani to file an affidavit answering questions about whether there was any quid pro quo offered by anyone in exchange for the US Department of Justice’s recent decision to end legal proceedings against him on bribery and securities fraud charges.
In a court order dated July 8, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis gave Adani until July 15 to answer whether he was “aware of any agreement to exchange anything for the dismissal of the indictment.”
This development comes amid a growing conflict between the US District Court and the Department of Justice over the latter’s decision to drop charges against Gautam Adani and seven other defendants, including his nephew Sagar Adani and Adani Green Energy CEO Vineet Jain.
Adani’s official spokesperson did not respond with a comment at the time of printing.
The court questions the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the charges
In 2024, the US Department of Justice filed an indictment against Adani alleging that the company engaged in bribery of Indian officials in order to obtain solar contracts, and subsequently engaged in securities fraud by misleading investors about the company’s anti-corruption and anti-bribery efforts.
On June 26, Garaufis directed the Justice Department to provide the court with reasons for dismissing the indictment against the defendants after describing the department’s request as “succinct, sweet, and decisive.”
In a response filed on July 4, Principal Assistant Attorney General Trent McCotter — who described himself as the “final and sole decision maker” behind the dismissal — defended the Justice Department’s decision to drop the charges.
“In short, there was nothing at all improper about the department’s motion to dismiss, which has now been pending for six weeks, during which time the defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago — or were never filed in the first place. There was nothing improper about the underlying decision to drop these charges. However, it would be a grave error to rely on media reports that cite anonymous sources desperately hoping to give their flawed case one last moment before it is buried.” McCotter stated in his response.
Justice Department defends investment discussions
The reference was to media reports relating to stories indicating that the Adani Group had made investments in the US economy in exchange for dropping the charges.
McCotter added that the case largely dealt with matters in India, a foreign jurisdiction, which exposed the United States to the risk of “pretending to be the world’s police” and diverting resources that could be better used in domestic affairs. In addition, he said that Indian authorities investigated bribery accusations against the Adani Group and found little basis for them.
The senior US legal official admitted that the Justice Department met with lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell, a high-profile law firm representing the Adani Group.
McCotter claimed it was “perfectly fair” for the Adani Group’s lawyers to demand the charges be dropped by expressing the group’s intention to invest in the US economy, and pointing out that such an indictment against Gautam Adani and his associates would have made such investments impossible. McCotter asserted that he would have sought to dismiss the charges “regardless of any mention of investments, and regardless of whether the civil case (or any other matter) is settled or otherwise resolved.”
However, Judge Garaufis noted that McCotter’s statement raised the possibility of reaching an agreement regarding the dismissal of the indictment against Adani Group which had not previously been brought to the court’s attention.
The judge pointed to a June 24 letter submitted by attorney Gautam Adani explaining the reasons the defendants agreed to dismissal, which “did not mention any agreement to drop this case – let alone an agreement to drop the charges in exchange for the defendant’s promise to invest money in the United States.” Garaufis noted that the court “must be satisfied that reasons are given.” [by the Government] “The proposed dismissal is fundamental and the real grounds on which the application is based.”
Garaufis directed that the court must be satisfied that there is no quid pro quo agreement with regard to dropping the charge sheet against the Adani Group and direct Gautam Adani to respond to questions related thereto by July 15.
(With inputs from Maulik Pathak in Ahmedabad)
