The US Department of Justice has strongly defended its decision to drop the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others, telling a federal judge that the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive, and inconsistent with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities. In a sharply worded 10-page filing, the DOJ said the case “should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place,” arguing that the court had only a limited role in reviewing its decision to dismiss charges with prejudice.
The filing came after US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis asked the department to explain why it was seeking to permanently dismiss the indictment, calling its earlier motion “terse, bland, and conclusory.”
In 2024, the DOJ, under the Biden administration, indicted Adani and others for allegedly being involved in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to the tune of USD 250 million and to lie to investors to receive billions more in investments from other entities — during which alleged scheme Adani Green Energy Ltd. raised at least USD 175 million from US investors.
Reasons for dropping charges will expose internal debates: US DoJ
The DOJ argued that requiring prosecutors to publicly explain decisions to drop cases would discourage future dismissals, expose privileged internal deliberations, and undermine the executive branch’s constitutional authority over prosecutorial and charging decisions.
“Judicial inquisitions into the bases for dismissal will expose privileged internal debates. Some Department lawyers may believe a case is worthy of continued pursuit, either in whole or in part; others may disagree. That is natural, and the internal debate is helpful and should be encouraged. But judicial inquisitions will chill those debates,” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter wrote, adding that such demand hurt defendants by potentially chilling the Department from seeking dismissal of criminal charges it determines are not in the interests of justice.
Waiving privilege only for this case, McCotter said he decided to dismiss the charges after months of meetings with defence lawyers, reviewing hundreds of pages of submissions and conducting his own legal analysis. “The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call,” he wrote.
The department cited six overarching reasons for dropping all charges, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, Indian authorities had 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.
“This is a foreign case,” McCotter wrote.
“The indictment is about “several Indians (with maybe a European or two) allegedly tried to bribe other Indians by paying the Indian government via complex Indian rebate programs to provide Indian contracts to provide Indian electricity to Indians in India. 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,” McCotter wrote.
‘Adani securities fraud charges were indefensible’
The Justice Department all but disavowed its own prior prosecution, calling the securities fraud counts against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain a repackaging of a failed FCPA theory. “The securities charges should never have been brought,” McCotter wrote, adding that at most the allegations warranted civil, rather than criminal, resolution.
The DOJ argued the alleged misconduct occurred almost entirely outside the United States, and the securities transactions did not satisfy US jurisdictional requirements.
The DOJ said investors had not lost money because the notes at issue had either been fully repaid or continued to be serviced.
The letter argued that the alleged misstatements were mere corporate “puffery,” that sophisticated institutional buyers couldn’t plausibly have been misled, and that the underlying notes have all been repaid without a single investor losing money.
McCotter said he’d resolved to dismiss these charges “no matter what,” independent of any investment discussions with the defendants.
The department also said the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges no longer aligned with DOJ policy under Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum directing prosecutors to focus on cases involving US national security, transnational criminal organisations, serious misconduct or harm to US companies.
“The alleged conduct did not involve criminal organizations, did not have any effect on US companies, did not in any way implicate national security, was not egregious, and has been the subject of investigations in India,” the filing said.
FCPA charges should have been dismissed a year ago: DoJ
“Under the Blanche Memorandum, the FCPA charges should have been dismissed a year ago.”
McCotter also rejected media reports suggesting the DOJ sought dismissal in exchange for promises of US investment by the Adani Group, calling such claims “false”.
“I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments,” he wrote.
“The mention of potential investments could not have played any role.”
The department urged the judge to promptly dismiss the case, arguing continued judicial scrutiny only prolonged uncertainty for defendants facing charges the government itself no longer believed should proceed.
“In short, there was absolutely nothing improper with the Department’s as-filed dismissal motion,” McCotter wrote. “The defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place.”
‘Anonymous leakers tried to sabotage Adani case dismissal’
McCotter used part of the filing to rebut media reports suggesting the dismissal was tied to promises of US investment from the defendants, calling the claims “false” and the timeline manufactured by unnamed Department leakers.
He said he had committed to dismissing the securities charges before investment plans ever came up, and mocked the idea that a prominent Sullivan & Cromwell partner would propose an improper deal in front of a dozen-plus attorneys. He closed by arguing the leaks backfired, forcing the government to publicly detail “the numerous catastrophic flaws” in its own case.
“The debate should not be fought through the media in a proxy battle designed to influence the Court. In the end, however, the anonymous leakers stepped on their own landmine: the only thing they have achieved was the submission of this public rejoinder explaining in detail the numerous catastrophic flaws with their case,” McCotter wrote.
Also Read: Rs 1.5 lakh crore investment in infra reflects commitment to nation-building: Gautam Adani at AGM
