U.S. says Adani case dismissal not tied to reported investment offer

The Justice Department is trying to walk away from the criminal case against Gautam Adani, but a federal judge in Brooklyn has not yet let the move stand and wants prosecutors to justify it in open court. The department says the case should be dismissed because it is primarily foreign, difficult to prove and out of step with current enforcement priorities, while also denying that any reported offer to pour billions into the United States played a role.

The dispute now centers on prosecutorial independence and whether the public will be given enough to trust the decision. Reports around the case said the Adani Group had pledged about $10 billion in U.S. investment and 15,000 jobs. The Justice Department has said that was not the reason it sought dismissal with prejudice, a move that would permanently close the case if Judge Nicholas Garaufis approves it.

The federal case began when prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York unsealed a five-count indictment in Brooklyn on November 20, 2024. It charged Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and executive Vneet S. Jaain with securities fraud and wire fraud over an alleged scheme to pay more than $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials. Prosecutors said the payoff was meant to secure solar-energy contracts expected to generate more than $2 billion in after-tax profit over about 20 years.

That same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a related enforcement action against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Azure Power executive Cyril Cabanes. In that filing, the SEC said Adani Green Energy Ltd. raised $175 million from U.S. investors while the bribery scheme was in progress. Adani Group rejected the allegations and called them baseless, saying it would pursue legal action.

Garaufis drew a line in June, refusing on June 26 to immediately dismiss the criminal charges and ordering prosecutors to explain their decision to abandon the case. His ruling made clear that the court still has to sign off on any dismissal with prejudice, keeping alive the possibility that the judge could reject the Justice Department’s request if he finds the explanation thin.

The department’s next filing will test how much of its reasoning can survive scrutiny. If the case is to end permanently, prosecutors will need to show more than a shift in policy and more than a denied investment story: they will have to persuade the court that the original prosecution was unsound enough to be abandoned now.