US DOJ Tells Court: Gautam Adani Case Inconsistent With Trump's Enforcement Priorities; Should Have Never Been Brought Up

The US Department of Justice has told the Court that its decision to drop the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani is correct as the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and is inconsistent with the Trump administration's enforcement priorities.

In a 10-page submission, the DOJ has said the case "should have been dropped a year ago -- or never brought in the first place".

The federal court has further been told that the criminal case was a “name and shame” indictment brought without any realistic prospect of a trial.

In a filing made on July 4 before Judge Nicholas G Garaufis, the DOJ defended its decision to seek dismissal with prejudice of all charges in United States v Gautam S Adani and others. "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 DOJ has said.

The United States judge had recently asked the US Department of Justice as to why it dropped criminal charges against industrialist Gautam Adani and asked them to provide more information in the case by next month. The judge has till then declined to formally dismiss the case after a request was made from Adani's lawyers.

Gautam Adani had urged the judge to formally dismiss criminal charges against him, after the Justice Department said ​last month that it would no longer pursue the prosecution.

Adani was charged ​in 2024 with agreeing to bribe Indian government ⁠officials so a subsidiary of his Adani Group could win ​approval to develop a solar plant, and then misleading U.S. ​investors by providing reassuring information about his company's anti-corruption practices. The US Securities and Exchange Commission had sued Adani Group founder and his nephew, Sagar, in November 2024, alleging they misled investors by failing to disclose an alleged bribery scheme tied to Indian state officials, framing the case under US securities laws. Adani had said that SEC's claims over a 2021 bond sale by the group's renewable energy arm, Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL) are legally flawed on multiple grounds.

Just last month, the US Department of Justice permanently dropped all criminal charges against Adani and his nephew Sagar, bringing high-profile securities and wire fraud case in New York to a complete close.

On behalf of Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vineet Jain, their lawyers, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP have written to Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in connection with the pending resolutions of the said cases.

"We respectfully ask the Court to grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Indictment with prejudice and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion to enter the pending Consent Judgments resolving its claims. For the Court’s convenience and consideration, we set forth below some background regarding the allegations and pending resolutions in each case, along with the law governing the standard of review for such motions", the letter reads.

On November 20, 2024, the DOJ unsealed its Indictment against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vineet Jain among others. In its Indictment, the DOJ alleged that the Adani DOJ Defendants conspired to and did commit securities fraud and conspired to commit wire fraud in connection with 2021 and 2024 bond offerings and 2021 and 2023 syndicated bank loans. That same day, the SEC filed its Complaint against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani alleging that the Adani SEC Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by approving or making false or misleading statements in connection with the 2021 bond offering.

Adani's lawyers have stated that the Indictment and Complaint do not allege any U.S. bribery offenses against the Adani DOJ Defendants. "They also do not allege any investor losses arising from any of the four transactions. Both the 2021 and 2024 bond offerings were issued pursuant to Regulation S and Rule 144A, promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933. As relevant here, under Rule 144A, those offerings were available only to Qualified Institutional Buyers (“QIBs”), which are large and sophisticated institutions that own or invest more than $100 million in securities. Id. § 230.144A(a)(1). The 2021 bond offering has matured, and all interest payments have been made. The 2024 bond offering has missed no interest payments. The 2021 loan has been repaid in full, and the 2023 loan is not in default," the letter adds.