US Judge Demands DOJ Explain Dropping Charges Against Gautam Adani

A United States federal judge has ordered the Justice Department (DOJ) to provide a detailed justification for its decision to drop criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others. The ruling, issued on Wednesday, comes a month after the DOJ announced it would no longer seek prosecution in the case.

In a written order, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the government's initial notice of dismissal was "terse, bland, and conclusory," affording the court neither a sufficient basis to reach a conclusion nor an opportunity to conduct any analysis of the request. He set a July 13 deadline for prosecutors to submit more information.

Adani's lawyers had asked the judge on Wednesday to formally dismiss the case, arguing it fell outside the reach of US law and that prosecutors could not prove the alleged bribery in India. The DOJ had moved to drop the charges after Adani pledged a $10 billion investment in the United States.

Adani, currently ranked as the 17th richest person in the world by Bloomberg's Billionaire Index, was indicted in 2024 for allegedly agreeing to bribe Indian government officials to secure a solar power plant contract. The indictment also accused his company of misleading US investors about its anti-corruption practices. Adani has consistently denied the allegations.

DOJ Defends Decision

In a sharply worded 10-page filing, the DOJ forcefully defended its decision to abandon the case, telling the judge the prosecution was "legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive, and inconsistent with the Trump administration's enforcement priorities."

The filing stated that the case "should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place," and argued that the court had only a limited role in reviewing the decision to dismiss charges with prejudice.

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote that requiring prosecutors to publicly justify dismissal decisions would discourage future dismissals, expose privileged internal deliberations, and infringe on the executive branch's constitutional authority over charging decisions.

"Judicial inquisitions into the bases for dismissal will expose privileged internal debates," McCotter wrote, adding that such demands could hurt defendants by chilling the Department from seeking dismissal of charges it determines are not in the interests of justice.

The DOJ said it decided to dismiss the charges after months of meetings, waiving privilege only for this case to explain its reasoning.

Charges and Context

The DOJ had indicted Adani and others in 2024 under the Biden administration, alleging involvement in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to the tune of $250 million and to lie to investors to receive billions more in investments. During the alleged scheme, Adani Green Energy Limited raised at least $175 million from US investors.

The DOJ cited six reasons for dropping all charges, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centered in India, Indian authorities had already investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, investors suffered no financial losses, key evidence and witnesses were located abroad, the defendants were unlikely to ever appear before a US court, and the prosecution faced significant evidentiary hurdles.

Perspectives

Judge's Concern

Judge Garaufis expressed concern over the lack of clarity in the DOJ's initial motion, stating that the government's statement did not provide a sufficient basis for the court to evaluate the request. His order requires the DOJ to submit a more detailed explanation by July 13.

DOJ's Position

The DOJ maintains that its decision to drop the charges was legally sound and within its prosecutorial discretion. It argues that public justification of dismissal decisions would undermine the executive branch's authority and expose internal deliberations.

Defense's Argument

Adani's legal team, led by lawyer Robert Giuffra, argues the case should be dismissed because it falls outside US jurisdiction and prosecutors cannot prove the alleged bribery in India. They have consistently denied any wrongdoing.