New York/IBNS: A US federal judge has dismissed the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, bringing a major legal development in the long-running US bribery case, with Adani welcoming the decision and saying his faith in “truth, fairness and the rule of law” had remained unwavering throughout the challenging period.
“I welcome the US court’s decision with humility and deep respect for the judicial process,” Adani said in a post on X following the ruling.
“Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering,” he said, expressing gratitude to those who continued to have faith in him, the US legal system and “India’s capacity for justice.”
“We will continue doing what matters: building for our nation, creating value that outlasts us and serving a purpose larger than ourselves. That is our commitment. Jai Hind,” Adani said.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York ordered the dismissal after the US Justice Department sought to abandon the prosecution. However, the judge sharply questioned the department's handling of the case and said irregularities surrounding the decision to dismiss the indictment were concerning.
Garaufis made clear that his decision to dismiss the case should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government's decision or as a finding on the merits of the allegations against Adani.
The case, filed in November 2024, accused Adani and others of agreeing to pay approximately $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure lucrative solar-power contracts and of misleading US investors about anti-corruption practices. The Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing.
The Justice Department subsequently decided to abandon the prosecution during the Trump administration, arguing that the case was largely foreign in nature, difficult to prove and inconsistent with its current enforcement priorities.
The judge questioned the process by which the decision was reached, including the role of senior DOJ official Trent McCotter and the extent to which prosecutors and investigators who had worked on the case were consulted.
The court also examined whether Adani's previously announced $10 billion investment commitment in the United States had any connection to the decision to drop the case.
Adani acknowledged in a sworn declaration that his lawyers had told the Justice Department that the investment pledge could potentially form part of a resolution. His legal team had also indicated that the Adani Group was willing to follow through on the investment commitment as part of a resolution.
Garaufis said he was satisfied that the $10 billion pledge did not influence the Justice Department's decision to dismiss the charges. He nevertheless noted the broader concerns such arrangements could raise about public perceptions of equal justice and the rule of law.
US media outlets, including CBS News and Politico, have also highlighted the unusual circumstances surrounding the Justice Department's decision to abandon the prosecution and the questions raised by the court over the process.
The dismissal does not amount to a judicial finding that the allegations were false or that Adani was exonerated on their merits. The judge specifically cautioned against interpreting the ruling in that manner.
The original prosecution alleged that Adani and associates were involved in a scheme to secure solar-energy contracts in India through alleged bribes. Adani himself never appeared before a US court in connection with the criminal charges.
Separate US legal matters involving the Adani Group have continued. Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have agreed to monetary settlements in separate Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings, while Adani Enterprises reached a separate settlement with the US Treasury concerning alleged Iran sanctions violations.
The judge is also expected to address the status of other defendants in the wider case.
For Adani, Monday's dismissal marks a significant development in a prosecution that had generated considerable attention in both India and the United States and raised broader questions over the international legal exposure of Indian companies operating in global markets.
