US Attorney denies contradiction in DOJ bid to drop Adani case; says he attended meetings but Deputy AG took final call

United States Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr has denied that his involvement in the Gautam Adani case contradicts the Justice Department’s claim that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter was the sole decision-maker behind the move to seek a dismissal of the case against the Indian industrialist.

In a sworn declaration filed before the Eastern District of New York, Nocella said McCotter took the final decision that no further resources should be spent on the prosecution of Adani and that the indictment should be dismissed.

The declaration was filed after Judge Nicholas G Garaufis flagged an apparent contradiction in the Justice Department’s account and sought clarification from Nocella.

The Court had questioned McCotter’s claim that he was the “final and sole decision maker” after Adani’s counsel produced a May 11 email from Nocella. The email had rejected a proposal to invest $10 billion in the United States as part of a possible resolution of the criminal charges.

Nocella acknowledged that he attended several meetings concerning the case. These included meetings with defence counsel and separate meetings involving only Justice Department officials.

However, he maintained that McCotter ultimately exercised his authority and decided to seek dismissal.

“Ultimately, after various arguments were presented, including at the meetings referred to above, Mr. McCotter exercised his authority as PADAG and determined that further resources should not be deployed in this prosecution and that the indictment should be dismissed,” Nocella stated.

Nocella also denied having any role in drafting McCotter’s July 4 letter, which set out the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal.

“I was not the decision maker for the motion to dismiss and I had no participation in drafting the McCotter Letter,” he said.

The Court had earlier said Nocella’s email appeared to show that he was involved in deciding the grounds on which the criminal charges could be resolved. It had, therefore, asked him to confirm whether McCotter’s stated reasons were the real and complete grounds for seeking dismissal.

Nocella supported McCotter’s account.

“I have no basis to believe that the reasons advanced by Mr. McCotter for the proposed dismissal are not the real grounds upon which the application is based,” he stated.

Earlier, Adani had filed an affidavit on July 15 stating that he was unaware of any quid pro quo behind the DOJ’s decision.

He said he had no knowledge of anything being promised, offered, received or accepted in connection with the proposed dismissal. He also denied knowing about any agreement to exchange something for the withdrawal of the indictment.

The affidavit was filed in response to the court’s July 8 order seeking clarification on whether Adani’s pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States was connected to the DOJ’s decision.

Adani said he announced the proposed investment in November 2024, before the indictment and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint were unsealed. He claimed that he was unaware of both proceedings when he made the announcement.

By way of background, the indictment by the US government had alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta and others devised a plan to bribe Indian state government officials to get a 12 gigawatt solar power project going. It was alleged that bribes worth ₹2,029 crore (around $265 million) were promised to officials of state electricity distribution companies. Of this, ₹1,750 crore was allegedly allocated to officials in Andhra Pradesh to secure purchase of 7 gigawatts of solar power.

The United States DOJ later sought to drop the indictment and moved the Court seeking dismissal of the indictment against all eight accused.

However, judge Garaufis, on June 25, refused to immediately allow the request by the DOJ to drop the charges and instead asked it to give reasons for its decision to seek dismissal of the indictment.

The DOJ then filed a response on July 4 in which it described the prosecution against Adani as a “name and shame” indictment unsealed during the final days of the Biden administration without any realistic prospect of a trial.

It argued that the case was overwhelmingly foreign in character, since it concerned Indian nationals allegedly offering bribes to other Indian nationals for Indian electricity contract.

In his July 8 order, Judge Garaufis said that while considering a motion under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court must satisfy itself that the reasons advanced by the government are substantial and represent the real grounds for seeking dismissal.

Since the Court did not find that any undisclosed agreement existed, it sought Adani’s affidavit to satisfy itself on this aspect before deciding the government’s application to dismiss the indictment.

Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain are being represented in the proceedings by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP co-chair Robert J Giuffra Jr and partner James McDonald. Incidentally, Robert Giuffra happens to be US President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer.

The other lawyers who are representing Adani are Timothy Sini (Nixon Peabody) and Andrey Spektor (Norton Rose Fulbright).

Ranjit Gupta is being represented by Paul Schoeman of HSF Kramer (New York).

Cyril Cabanes is being represented by Stephen Best from Brown Rudnick (Washington, DC).

Saurabh Agarwal is being represented by Winston Paes of Debevoise & Plimpton (New York).

Deepak Malhotra is being represented by Aditya Singh (Singapore) and Michael Kendall (Boston) of White & Case.

Rupesh Agarwal is being represented by Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan of Steptoe (Washington, DC).