A US federal court directed Gautam Adani to file an affidavit by July 15 disclosing whether any promise, offer or agreement was linked to the US Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the criminal indictment against him and seven others in an alleged bribery case.
A United States federal court has directed Gautam Adani to disclose whether any promise, offer, agreement or exchange was made in connection with the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to dismiss the criminal indictment against him and seven other accused in an alleged international bribery case.
In an order dated July 8, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York directed Adani to file an affidavit by July 15 addressing whether any understanding or arrangement existed in relation to the government’s decision to seek dismissal of the indictment.
The direction comes amid judicial scrutiny of the DOJ’s decision to abandon one of the most closely watched foreign bribery prosecutions involving Indian business executives.
The Court has asked Gautam Adani to specifically answer two 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?”
The affidavit has been sought before the Court decides whether to approve the government’s request to dismiss the criminal proceedings.
The order followed a response submitted by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who informed the Court that he was the “final and sole decision maker” responsible for seeking dismissal of the indictment.
McCotter rejected media reports suggesting that the dismissal was linked to any commitment by the Adani Group to make investments in the United States.
However, after examining the government’s explanation, Judge Garaufis observed that the response unexpectedly introduced the possibility that an undisclosed arrangement involving one or more defendants might exist, even though no such agreement had been placed before the Court.
The judge observed:
“In other words, Mr. McCotter’s response to the court’s June 26, 2026 Memorandum & Order raises, for the first time, the specter of a possible agreement (involving one or multiple Defendants) in connection with the dismissal of the Indictment that has neither been memorialized nor previously brought to the attention of this court.”
The Court clarified that before permitting withdrawal of criminal charges, it must satisfy itself that no undisclosed consideration or agreement influenced the government’s decision.
The criminal proceedings originated from an indictment filed by the United States Department of Justice, which accused Gautam Adani and several others of participating in a large-scale bribery conspiracy connected to renewable energy projects in India.
The indictment alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta, and other accused devised a scheme to secure lucrative power purchase agreements by paying illegal gratification to officials of State electricity distribution companies in India.
According to US prosecutors, bribes amounting to approximately Rs 2,029 crore (about US$265 million) were allegedly promised to government officials. Out of this amount, around Rs 1,750 crore was allegedly earmarked for officials in Andhra Pradesh to facilitate procurement agreements for nearly 7 gigawatts of solar power. The indictment alleged that the conspiracy enabled the accused to obtain substantial commercial advantages in India’s renewable energy sector.
ALSO READ: “Gautam Adani Charged for Securities Fraud Conspiracy”: Adani Green
In a significant development, the Department of Justice subsequently filed an application requesting the Court to dismiss the indictment against all eight accused persons. The application sought dismissal with prejudice, meaning that the criminal charges could not be revived in future.
However, on June 25, Judge Garaufis declined to immediately approve the request. Instead, he directed the DOJ to explain the reasons behind its decision to abandon the prosecution, observing that courts are required to independently examine such requests before granting permission.
In its detailed response filed on July 4, the Department of Justice described the prosecution as a “name and shame” indictment that had been unsealed during the closing days of the Biden administration without any realistic possibility of proceeding to trial.
The DOJ argued that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly foreign in nature. According to the Department, the case essentially involved Indian citizens allegedly offering bribes to other Indian citizens in connection with Indian government contracts relating to electricity procurement.
Questioning the appropriateness of American criminal jurisdiction in such circumstances, the DOJ stated:
“The United States pretending to be the world police can cause diplomatic strife and also wastes resources better spent on domestic concerns. India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington.”
The Department therefore urged the Court to permit withdrawal of the indictment.
Judge Garaufis noted that the defendants had earlier filed a letter dated June 24 explaining why they consented to the government’s request for dismissal. However, the Court pointed out that the letter made no reference to any understanding involving investment commitments or any other arrangement that may have influenced the government’s decision.
While the Court expressly stated that it had not found evidence of any undisclosed agreement, it observed that McCotter’s explanation made it necessary to seek further clarification directly from Gautam Adani.
The Court explained that under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, judges are required to ensure that the government’s reasons for abandoning a prosecution are genuine, substantial and not influenced by improper considerations. Accordingly, the affidavit has been sought before the Court decides whether the indictment should formally be dismissed.
Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain were represented before the Court by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, along with partner James McDonald. Notably, Robert Giuffra also serves as US President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer.
Other members of the defence team included Timothy Sini of Nixon Peabody, Andrey Spektor of Norton Rose Fulbright, Paul Schoeman of HSF Kramer for Ranjit Gupta, Stephen Best of Brown Rudnick for Cyril Cabanes, Winston Paes of Debevoise & Plimpton for Saurabh Agarwal, Aditya Singh and Michael Kendall of White & Case for Deepak Malhotra; and Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan of Steptoe for Rupesh Agarwal.
The affidavit to be filed by Gautam Adani by July 15 will play a significant role in determining whether the federal court is satisfied that the DOJ’s request to dismiss the indictment is free from any undisclosed arrangement or consideration.
Only after examining the affidavit and the government’s explanation will the Court decide whether to approve the dismissal of the criminal indictment against Adani and the seven other accused in the alleged bribery conspiracy.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE