A United States District Court has dismissed all criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others prejudice, in a $250 million bribery scheme.
As reported earlier, the Court had sought an explanation from the Justice Department for their motion to dismiss the criminal charges brought against Gautam Adani and seven others for being part of the said bribery scheme.
US District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis observed that “the irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning.” Court further questioned how the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter came to this decision (to seek dismissal) “largely in collaboration with defense counsel, and seemingly without input from the FBI and SEC agents who investigated the alleged misconduct, or the attorneys from the Department, SEC, and U.S. Attorney’s Office who brought the case” calling it “highly unusual.”
Note: Previously, the Court had explained that Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the government to set out the basis for a motion to dismiss.
The Court admonished Trent McCotter-
“McCotter’s refusal to meet the procedural requirements of Rule 48(a)-even after the court’s clear direction to do so-evinces a lack of respect for the Judiciary as a co-equal branch. It also foreclosed a quick and efficient review of the requested dismissal and compelled the bifurcated resolution of the Rule 48(a) Motion.”
Furthermore, while referring to Trent McCotter’s arguments, wherein one of the reasons given to dismiss all Counts was that “India has investigated many of the allegations in this case and in several reports and decisions issued in 2026 has found no actionable misconduct,” Court observed –
“Unauthenticated foreign legal documents are insufficient to satisfy the court’s oversight obligations under Rule 48(a). Further, inspection of the documents reveals that they do not provide support for, and instead contradict, McCotter’s characterization of their contents.”
Court made certain crucial observations regarding the case-
“India’s Laws Are Not This Country’s Laws”
The unauthenticated foreign legal documents are irrelevant. India’s laws are not this country’s laws. It is obvious that the court cannot discharge its Rule 48(a) duty to review the Department’s reasons for dismissal by relying solely on “reports and decisions” from foreign tribunals applying foreign laws in foreign judicial systems. (Id.) Whatever determinations India’s tribunals may have made under India’s legal standards about some of the alleged conduct in this case (explained below), has no bearing on whether all Counts against all Defendants should be dismissed under the criminal laws of the United States in this case.
“Each Document Appears To Be A Decision By An Indian Government Authority Not To Investigate”
Putting aside their irrelevance, the documents provide no support for McCotter’s claims that India has “investigated many of the allegations in this case” and that India has “found no actionable misconduct.” (Id.) Not one of the documents appears to be the result of an investigation-by India or anyone else. Rather, each document appears to be a decision by an Indian government authority not to investigate. Not one of the documents meaningfully contends with the allegations in this case. In fact, the allegations-in each case, brought by a private individual-bear very little resemblance (if any) to the alleged conduct in the Indictment. Finally, no document concludes that nothing “inappropriate” happened. (Id.)
Court then referred to the Competition Commission of India’s decision not to investigate a private individual’s claims about possible collusion between 12 named parties in the “generation and distribution of solar power” in India in violation of India’s Competition Act of 2002. Judge Garaufis noted that the crux of the complaint before the Commission was that the Adani Group “abused their market dominance” in the “power generation market in India.” However, no industry collusion is alleged in the indictment. Court said-
“The only overlap with this case appears to be the private “Informant[‘s]” attempt to support his case with the Indictment’s existence. In that regard, the Commission appears to have concluded that the allegations of bribery in the Indictment “[do] not seem to qualify” as violations of India’s Competition Act.”
The US District Court also referred to a PIL before the Delhi High Court seeking investigation into the “grave irregularities” in the “competitive bidding process for solar power projects” observing that “no allegations of bribery, securities fraud, or wire fraud were made or investigated. The only overlap between the New Delhi High Court action and this case is the existence of the Indictment-again, used by the private claimant as an attempt to bolster his private claim.”
Similarly, the Bombay High Court declined to investigate a private petitioner’s claims “relating to the offence of bribery.” Again, the only apparent overlap with this case is the petitioner’s invocation of the Indictment’s existence.
Thus, relying on these two above decisions, Court observed-
“Not one of these documents says anything about either Appearing Defendants’s alleged lies and omissions to lenders and investors in the United States, or Non-Appearing Defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence and lies to federal officials in New York.”
Finally, Judge Garaufis said- “McCotter appears to have eschewed the professional opinions of innumerable officials from various federal offices and replaced them with his singular judgment. The fact that McCotter came to this decision largely in collaboration with defense counsel, and seemingly without input from the FBI and SEC agents who investigated the alleged misconduct, or the attorneys from the Department, SEC, and U.S. Attorney’s Office who brought the case, appears to be highly unusual.”
Court Also Referred To The Defense Attorney “Robert J Giuffra’s Monetary Offers”
Taking no position on the ultimate propriety of Mr. Giuffra’s repeat attempts to resolve this bribery case with monetary offers, the court finds Mr. Giuffra’s reliance on the Department’s guidelines for the prosecution of business organizations (as in Section 9-28.300 of the Justice Manual) unpersuasive. This case does not involve corporate defendants. It is brought against eight individuals. The Department’s cases brought against individual defendants are subject to their own guidelines.
It is up to the public to decide what effect offers of this kind have on the equal administration of justice and the rule of law. Ultimately, “it is the public’s judgment, and not this [c]ourt’s, that truly matters.” (Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 237).
Finally, Court granted the motion to dismiss the Indictment but in part. Court directed the Justice Department to advise the court of each reason for dismissing Counts One and Five with prejudice as against Non-Appearing Defendants Ranjit Gupta, Cyril Cabanes, Saurabh Agarwal, Deepak Malhotra, and Rupesh Agarwal and to provide the court with sufficient factual support for each reason. The Department has been ordered to do so no later than August 31, 2026.
Author: Nitish Kashyap
