Introduction

It has definitely now come out as an inevitable unpalatable truth that was waiting to be laid bare that none other than the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) has told a federal court that the criminal case that was initiated against Gautam Adani and others was a “name and shame” indictment ostensibly in the final days of the prior US administration led by former US President Joe Biden palpably as a “name and shame” exercise that was designed and brought about levelling most serious accusations without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring. This is definitely most condemnable and utterly reprehensible, which depicts racial hatred for Indians! It may be recalled that in June 2026, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis had ordered prosecutors to justify their decision to drop their case that was initiated against Gautam Adani, whom former US President Joe Biden-era prosecutors had charged with securities fraud and wire fraud that pertained to an alleged bribery scheme.

Background Of The Indictment

For the uninitiated, it must be disclosed that the indictment had alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta and others had devised a plan to bribe the Indian state government officials to get the project going. It was alleged that bribes worth Rs 2,029 crore (around $265 million) were promised to officials of state electricity distribution companies. Of this, Rs 1,750 crore was allegedly allocated to officials in Andhra Pradesh to secure the purchase of 7 gigawatts of solar power. It may also be recalled that in a July 4 filing before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, who is a US District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York, the DOJ vehemently defended its decision to seek dismissal with prejudice of all charges in United States v Gautam S. Adani and others.

Key Allegations At A Glance

DoJ Explains Why It Wants The Case Dismissed

It merits noting that the US Justice Department said on July 4 that it wants to drop charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani because the case is primarily foreign, hard to prove and inconsistent with the agency’s current priorities. But the damage has been done. A reputation which is earned after many decades of relentless hard work is bulldozed within no time, as we see here in the case of Gautam Adani, who is an eminent Indian billionaire and one of the richest Indians!

It is worth noting that the US Justice Department on July 4 responded with a 10-page filing outlining why it sought to dismiss all charges with prejudice against Adani and other defendants. It must be taken into account that the US Department of Justice said clearly that it abandoned the criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others because of ‘legal and pragmatic’ reasons, including possible diplomatic strife and that there were no losses or evidence to continue with the case. It also needs to be borne in mind that in a 10-page filing, the DoJ said quite clearly that, “Given that there were no victims who suffered any losses, the resolution of (a) civil case made it even more obvious that there was no point in pursuing criminal securities charges for the same conduct. Even if the criminal case were to continue, no victim would stand to recover any restitution, because there were no losses to recover.”

DoJ "Name And Shame" Observation

Be it noted, the DOJ in its response said most explicitly that, “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 were surely unaware they were dropping a potential quagmire of a case into the lap of the incoming administration, and perhaps that was an intentional choice.”

Court Seeks Explanation

It would be worthwhile to note that the filing was made after the judge asked the DOJ to explain why it had sought the dismissal of the case. The Court had earlier described the DOJ’s dismissal motion as “terse, bland and conclusory". The Justice Department said categorically that "U.S. government attorneys should not prosecute a 'foreign case' of alleged conduct that involves no criminal organisations and no U.S. companies, and does not affect national security.”

Foreign Character Of The Case

The filing to drop the charges against Gautam Adani says most explicitly that, “The alleged ‘payments’ in this case were made by Indian nationals, working for Indian companies, to the Indian government, with no U.S. interests implicated in any way.” It was also observed that, “The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call.” It said the case was overwhelmingly foreign in character.

Internal DoJ Review And Analysis

It also cannot be lost sight of and needs to be taken into account that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who signed the filing, said most categorically that the decision to drop the charges was taken after meetings with defence counsel, internal DOJ discussions, reviews of hundreds of pages of material and independent legal analysis. According to the DOJ, the allegations concerned Indian nationals allegedly trying to bribe other Indian nationals through Indian rebate programmes for Indian contracts to supply Indian electricity in India. On a most pragmatic note, the DOJ further said that the United States pretending to be the world police can cause diplomatic strife and also waste resources better spent on domestic concerns. India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington.”

Additional Reasons For Dropping The Case

It cannot be just glossed over that the US Justice Department also laid bare that India had examined many of the allegations and, in reports and decisions issued in 2026, found no actionable misconduct. The DOJ listed several reasons for dropping the case. It said that no investor had lost any money on the securities at issue. Two notes had been fully repaid, and the other two were current.

Major Reasons Cited By The DoJ

• Case was primarily foreign in nature.
• No investor suffered any losses.
• India had already examined many allegations.
• Two notes had been fully repaid.
• Remaining notes were current.
• Possible diplomatic consequences.
• Resource allocation concerns.

DoJ On Securities Charges

By any reckoning, the DOJ minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably on security charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain that "The securities charges should never have been brought.” The department said the securities charges were failed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and claimed that they had been recast as securities charges. It was further pointed out that there were serious proof problems since significant evidence and key witnesses were in India.

It was also added further that the defendants had never appeared in the case and probably never would, since they are foreign nationals living abroad in locations where there was no reasonable prospect of arrest. It also pointed out that the alleged conduct took place almost entirely in India and raised serious jurisdictional concerns under US securities law. Very rightly so!

DoJ On U.S. Interest And Puffery

It was also pointed out by the DOJ in its filing that, “The alleged ‘payments’ in this case were made by Indian nationals, working for Indian companies, to the Indian government, with no U.S. interests implicated in any way.” The DOJ also said that the alleged false departments were largely general statements about legal compliance, reputation and integrity. Such statements, it said, have been treated by US courts as non-actionable puffery in securities cases.

FCPA Policy Analysis

On the FCPA charges against the other defendants, the DOJ made it crystal clear that they did not satisfy the department’s own enforcement policy under the Blanche Memorandum. That policy requires FCPA prosecutions to focus on conduct that directly undermines US national interests. The DOJ took a very clear stand that the alleged conduct did not involve criminal organisations, did not affect US companies, did not implicate national security, was not egregious and had already been investigated in India.

DoJ Rejects Media Speculation

For the sake of clarity, it was also stated explicitly that "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.” It also rejected media reports that were swirling around widely suggesting that the dismissal was linked to any promise of investment in the United States.

Judicial Scrutiny And Separation Of Powers

By all accounts, it was very rightly pointed out by the DOJ that it had already decided to seek dismissal of the securities charges before any such topic arose. It must be noted that the filing also pushed back against judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial decisions to drop charges. It also pointed out that forcing the DOJ to explain internal reasons for dismissal could chill future dismissals, expose privileged deliberations and raise separation of power concerns.

Representation Before The Court

Truth be told, the DOJ said that there was nothing improper in its original dismissal motion and politely urged the court to allow the case to be closed. It said that the defendants had remained in limbo for six weeks on charges that should have been dropped a year ago or never brought in the first place. Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain have been represented in the court proceedings by Sullivan and Cromwell LLP co-chair Robert J. Giuffra Jr and partner James McDonald.

Conclusion

All told and as a corollary, it has now become indubitably clear that the criminal case that was initiated against Gautam Adani and others was a “name and shame” indictment by the Biden administration without any realistic prospect of a trial. It is thus a no-brainer that the US DoJ has very rightly defended its decision to seek dismissal with prejudice of all charges in the leading case titled United States v Gautam S Adani and others. No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.