US court refuses to immediately drop Adani indictment, says DoJ didn't give adequate reasons

A United States federal court has refused to immediately allow the Department of Justice (DoJ) to drop criminal charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and others in the alleged $250 million bribery case, after finding that the government’s explanation for doing so was “terse, bland, and conclusory.” [United States v. Gautam S Adani et al]

Judge Nicholas G Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York directed the DoJ to give reasons for its decision to seek dismissal of the indictment against all eight accused.

The Court said that the government must provide each reason for seeking dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, along with sufficient factual support for each basis.

“Here, the Government’s terse, bland, and conclusory statement affords the court neither a sufficient basis to reach any conclusion, nor the opportunity to conduct any analysis of the Government’s request for dismissal,” the judge said.

It added that Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the government to set out the basis for a motion to dismiss. It described the rule as a “sunshine provision” under which prosecutors must supply sufficient reasons to support dismissal of an indictment.

"Thus, the Government has failed to meet its obligation to supply adequate reasoning and sufficient facts to support dismissal of the Indictment. And, without this additional information, the court cannot fulfill its own obligation to exercise "sound judicial discretion in considering [the Government's] request for dismissal."

The DoJ has been directed to file its explanation by July 13, 2026.

The order came after the US government moved the Court under Rule 48(a). In its May 18 filing, the DoJ said that after reviewing the case, it decided not to devote further resources to the criminal charges against the individual defendants.

The indictment had arisen from allegations concerning a 12 gigawatt solar power project. According to the earlier indictment, the Solar Energy Corporation of India needed state electricity distribution companies to enter into power supply agreements so that the project and related power purchase agreements would become financially workable.

The indictment 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.

It was further alleged that Adani entities raised over $3 billion in loans and securities from US investors while concealing the alleged bribery scheme. The indictment had also claimed that Adani issued $750 million in senior secured notes in September 2021, with around 25% of the bond purchased by US-based investors.

The defendants were charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The Adani Group had earlier dismissed the allegations as baseless.

The DOJ’s motion was signed by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter and United States Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr.

Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain are 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).