A US judge ordered Indian billionaire Gautam Adani to submit a sworn affidavit answering questions about whether there was any quid pro quo offered by anyone in exchange for the US Justice Department’s recent decision to end legal proceedings against him on charges of bribery and securities fraud.
In a court order dated July 8, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis gave Adani until July 15 to answer if he was “aware of any agreement exchanging anything for the dismissal of the Indictment.”
The development comes amid an increasing tussle between the US District Court and the Department of Justice over the latter’s decision to dismiss charges against Gautam Adani and seven co-defendants, including his nephew Sagar Adani and Adani Green Energy executive Vneet Jaain.
An Adani spokesperson did not respond with a comment at the time of going to print.
In 2024, the US Justice department filed an indictment against Adani alleging that the firm had been involved in bribing Indian officials in order to obtain solar power contracts and had subsequently engaged in securities fraud by misleading investors about the firm’s anti-corruption and anti-bribery efforts.
On June 26, Garaufis directed the Justice Department to provide the court reasons for dismissing the indictment against the defendants after terming the department’s motion “terse, bland and conclusory.”
{{/usCountry}}On June 26, Garaufis directed the Justice Department to provide the court reasons for dismissing the indictment against the defendants after terming the department’s motion “terse, bland and conclusory.”
{{/usCountry}}In a response filed on July 4, principal associate deputy attorney general Trent McCotter — who described himself as the “final and sole decisionmaker” behind the dismissal — defended the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss charges.
“In short, there was absolutely nothing improper with the Department’s as-filed dismissal motion, which has now been pending for six weeks, during which time the defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago - or never brought in the first place. Nor was there anything improper about the underlying decision to dismiss these charges. It would, however, be a grave mistake to rely on media reports citing anonymous sources desperately hoping to give their flawed case one last gasp before it’s buried,” McCotter stated in his response.
The reference to media reports concerned stories suggesting the Adani Group had pitched investments in the US economy in exchange for the dismissal of charges.
McCotter added that the case largely dealt with matters in India, a foreign jurisdiction, which ran the risk of the US “pretending to be the world police” and diverting resources that could be better used on domestic matters. In addition, he argued that Indian authorities had investigated the accusations of bribery against the Adani group and found little merit to them.
The top US legal official acknowledged that the Department of Justice had met with lawyers from Sullivan and Cromwell, a high-powered law firm which represents the Adani Group. McCotter argued that it was “entirely fair” for the Adani group’s lawyers to pitch for a dismissal of charges by expressing the group’s intention to invest in the US economy and pointing out that such the indictment against Gautam Adani and his associates would have made such investments impossible. McCotter asserted that he would have sought the dismissal of charges “regardless of any mentions of investments, regardless of whether the civil case (or any other matter) was settled or otherwise resolved.”
However, Judge Garaufis noted McCotter’s statement raised the possibility of an agreement in connection with the dismissal of the indictment against the Adani Group that had not previously been brought to the attention of the court. The judge pointed to a June 24 letter filed by Gautam Adani’s counsel setting out the defendants’ reasons for consenting to the dismissal, which made “no mention of any agreement to abandon this case — let alone an agreement to drop the charges in exchange for a defendant’s promise ‘to invest money in the United States.’” Garaufis noted that the court “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced [by the Government] for the proposed dismissal are substantial and the real grounds upon which the application is based.”
Garaufis directed that the court had to satisfy itself that no quid pro quo agreement existed in connection with the dismissal of the indictment against the Adani group and direct Gautam Adani to respond to questions on the same by July 15.
(With inputs from Maulik Pathak in Ahmedabad)