The US Department of Justice informed a federal court that the prosecution against Gautam Adani was effectively a “name and shame” case lacking any realistic prospect of trial. The DOJ defended its request to dismiss all charges with prejudice, preventing any future revival.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has told a federal court that the criminal prosecution initiated against industrialist Gautam Adani and several others was essentially a “name and shame” case that was filed without any realistic possibility of proceeding to trial.
In a detailed filing dated July 4 before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the DOJ defended its decision to seek dismissal with prejudice of all charges in United States v. Gautam S. Adani and Others, meaning the case cannot be revived in the future.
The filing came after the federal court directed the DOJ to provide a fuller explanation for its request to withdraw the prosecution. Earlier, the court had described the Department’s initial dismissal motion as “terse, bland, and conclusory,” prompting it to seek a more comprehensive justification.
In its submission, the Department made unusually strong observations about the circumstances in which the indictment had been filed during the final days of the previous US administration.
According to the DOJ:
“The indictment was unsealed in the final days of the prior Administration, apparently as a “name and shame” designed to levy accusations without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring. Department leadership at the time was surely aware they were dropping a potential quagmire of a case into the lap of the incoming Administration, and perhaps that was an intentional choice.”
The Department argued that the prosecution lacked practical viability from the outset and suggested that the previous administration proceeded despite knowing that the case was unlikely to culminate in a trial.
The filing was signed by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who informed the court that the decision to seek dismissal followed an extensive internal review.
According to the DOJ, officials held multiple meetings with defence lawyers, examined hundreds of pages of documents, conducted internal consultations and carried out an independent legal assessment before arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution should not continue. Emphasising the certainty of its conclusion, the Department stated that the decision to seek dismissal was not a close call.
A central theme of the DOJ’s submission was that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly foreign in nature and therefore unsuitable for criminal prosecution in the United States. The Department pointed out that the allegations involved Indian nationals allegedly attempting to bribe other Indian nationals in connection with Indian government rebate programmes and contracts relating to electricity generation and supply within India.
According to the filing, such disputes are better addressed by Indian authorities rather than American prosecutors.
The DOJ observed:
“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 further informed the court that Indian authorities had already examined many of the allegations and, through reports and decisions issued in 2026, had found no actionable misconduct warranting prosecution.
ALSO READ: “Gautam Adani Charged for Securities Fraud Conspiracy”: Adani Green
The DOJ also questioned the very foundation of the securities fraud allegations that had been brought against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain. According to the filing, none of the investors involved had suffered any financial losses. It stated that two of the relevant debt instruments had already been repaid in full, while the remaining notes continued to be serviced without default.
On that basis, the Department concluded that the securities charges should never have been brought.
The filing further argued that the securities allegations were essentially unsuccessful attempts to pursue claims under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by repackaging them as securities offences. According to the DOJ, the alleged conduct occurred almost entirely in India and therefore raised significant jurisdictional concerns under American securities law.
The Department also noted that many of the allegedly misleading public statements cited in the indictment merely concerned issues such as corporate integrity, legal compliance and reputation statements that US courts have often regarded as non-actionable corporate puffery rather than fraudulent misrepresentations.
The DOJ also highlighted several practical obstacles that, in its view, made successful prosecution highly improbable. It stated that most of the documentary evidence and principal witnesses were located in India. Further, the accused persons were foreign nationals residing outside the United States and had never appeared before the American court. According to the Department, there was little realistic possibility that they would be arrested or extradited to stand trial in the United States.
With respect to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allegations against the remaining accused persons, the DOJ argued that the prosecution failed to satisfy the Department’s own enforcement standards laid down in the Blanche Memorandum. The Department explained that its policy requires FCPA prosecutions to focus on conduct that directly affects United States national interests.
According to the filing, the alleged conduct neither involved organised criminal groups nor harmed American companies, implicated national security or reached the level of egregious misconduct contemplated under the Department’s current enforcement priorities. It also reiterated that Indian authorities had already investigated the matter independently.
The filing also strongly denied media reports suggesting that the decision to withdraw the prosecution was influenced by promises of investment in the United States. Rejecting such allegations, the Department stated:
“The current or former Department attorneys who unethically fed those stories have suggested that I sought dismissal of the securities charges at least in part because of some promise by those defendants to invest money in the United States. That is false.”
The DOJ clarified that the decision to seek dismissal had already been taken before any discussion concerning possible investments arose.
The Department also objected to what it described as judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial decisions to discontinue criminal proceedings. According to the filing, compelling prosecutors to disclose the internal reasons behind decisions to withdraw charges could discourage future dismissals, expose confidential legal deliberations and undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The DOJ maintained that there was nothing improper about its request to dismiss the case and urged the federal court to formally close the proceedings. It further observed that the accused had remained under the shadow of criminal prosecution for nearly six weeks despite facing charges that, in the Department’s assessment, “should have been dropped a year ago or never brought in the first place.”
The criminal indictment originally alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta and several others had participated in a conspiracy to pay bribes to officials of Indian state electricity distribution companies in order to secure large-scale solar power purchase agreements.
According to the allegations, bribes amounting to nearly Rs 2,029 crore (approximately US$265 million) were promised to public officials. Of this amount, approximately Rs 1,750 crore was allegedly earmarked for officials in Andhra Pradesh to facilitate procurement of nearly 7 gigawatts of solar power. The accused have consistently denied the allegations.
In the United States proceedings, Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain have been represented by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, along with partner James McDonald. Giuffra is also known as personal legal counsel to US President Donald Trump.
Other members of the defence team include Timothy Sini of Nixon Peabody, Andrey Spektor of Norton Rose Fulbright, Paul Schoeman of HSF Kramer, Stephen Best of Brown Rudnick, Winston Paes of Debevoise & Plimpton, Aditya Singh and Michael Kendall of White & Case, and Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan of Steptoe, representing the remaining accused.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE