A United States federal court has flagged contradictions in the Justice Department’s account of its decision to seek the dismissal of criminal charges against billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others in a $250 million bribery case..In light of the same, Judge Nicholas G Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York directed US Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr to submit a sworn statement clarifying his role in the decision and disclosing whether the government has any additional grounds for seeking dismissal.The direction came after Adani’s counsel placed on record a May 11 email from Nocella concerning a proposal by Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain to invest $10 billion in the United States as part of a possible resolution of the criminal charges..Nocella had “categorically rejected” the proposal. However, the Court said the email appeared to contradict an earlier claim by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter that he was the “final and sole decision maker” on whether to seek dismissal.“The representations made in Mr. Giuffra’s declaration and the quoted portions of U.S. Attorney Nocella’s email appear to directly contradict that claim,” the Court said..The Court observed that Nocella’s email suggested he was involved in determining the grounds on which the charges could be resolved as recently as May 11, one week before the Justice Department moved to dismiss the indictment.Nocella had signed the dismissal motion but had not signed McCotter’s subsequent letter setting out the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal, the Court noted.The May 11 email stated,.“The portion of the joint defense offer...to resolve the criminal charges against them by, in part, a general proposal to invest $10 billion in the United States is categorically rejected by this Office.”The email added that other grounds for resolving the criminal charges were being explored.Judge Garaufis criticised both sides for providing information in a piecemeal manner, saying that each new disclosure had raised further questions.The Court has now asked Nocella to state under oath whether he agrees with every ground for dismissal given in McCotter’s July 4 letter. He must also disclose whether any additional grounds exist and provide sufficient factual support for them. The statement has to be filed by July 17..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.The affidavit disclosed that his lawyers later suggested during settlement discussions that the investment pledge could form part of a resolution if the DOJ or the SEC wanted it to.However, Nocella informed the lawyers that the investment proposal would not be considered while deciding whether to seek dismissal of the indictment. His email added that other grounds for resolving the criminal charges were being explored.The Court said this suggested Nocella was involved in discussions concerning the resolution of the case a week before the DOJ moved to dismiss the charges..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 the 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 Nicholas G Garaufis on June 25 refused to immediately allow the request by 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.After Adani's response, the Court has now sought clarifications from Nocella..Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain were 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 represented Adani are Timothy Sini (Nixon Peabody) and Andrey Spektor (Norton Rose Fulbright).Ranjit Gupta was represented by Paul Schoeman of HSF Kramer (New York).Cyril Cabanes was represented by Stephen Best from Brown Rudnick (Washington, DC).Saurabh Agarwal was represented by Winston Paes of Debevoise & Plimpton (New York).Deepak Malhotra was represented by Aditya Singh (Singapore) and Michael Kendall (Boston) of White & Case.Rupesh Agarwal was represented by Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan of Steptoe (Washington, DC).
