US DOJ Says Adani Case 'Should Never Have Been Brought'; Defends Dismissal

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has strongly defended its decision to permanently drop the criminal case against billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others, telling a federal court that the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with the Trump administration's enforcement priorities.

In a 10-page filing submitted before the US District Court, the DOJ argued that the case "should have been dropped a year ago or never brought in the first place" and urged the court to approve its motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

The filing came after US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis asked the department to explain why it wanted to permanently abandon the prosecution, describing its earlier request as "terse, bland, and conclusory."

The criminal case, filed in 2024 under the Biden administration, accused Gautam Adani and others of participating in an alleged $250 million bribery scheme involving Indian government officials and misleading investors while Adani Green Energy Ltd raised at least $175 million from US investors.

DOJ Says Case Was Legally Flawed

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter said the decision to seek dismissal followed months of discussions with defence lawyers, a review of extensive submissions and an independent legal assessment.

"The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call," McCotter wrote.

The DOJ argued that requiring prosecutors to publicly justify decisions to abandon criminal cases would expose privileged internal deliberations, discourage future dismissals and interfere with the executive branch's constitutional authority over charging decisions.

The department listed six reasons for dropping the case, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, Indian authorities had already examined the allegations without finding actionable misconduct, investors had suffered no financial losses, most evidence and witnesses were located outside the US, the defendants were unlikely to appear before an American court, and prosecutors faced significant evidentiary challenges.

"This is a foreign case," McCotter wrote.

"The United States pretending to be the world police can cause diplomatic strife and also wastes resources better spent on domestic concerns. India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington," he added.

Securities, FCPA Charges Questioned

The DOJ also argued that the criminal securities fraud charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Cyril Cabanes lacked a sound legal foundation because the alleged misconduct occurred largely outside the United States and did not satisfy US jurisdictional requirements.

According to the filing, investors did not suffer losses because the securities in question had either been repaid or continued to be serviced. The department further described several statements cited in the indictment as corporate "platitudes" and "puffery" that sophisticated institutional investors were unlikely to rely upon.

"The securities charges should never have been brought," McCotter wrote, adding that, at most, the allegations could have justified civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution.

The department also said the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) charges no longer aligned with DOJ policy following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's June 2025 memorandum, which directed prosecutors to prioritise cases involving national security, organised crime, serious misconduct or harm to US companies.

According to the filing, the allegations against Adani did not involve criminal organisations, did not affect US companies, did not raise national security concerns and had already been investigated in India.

DOJ Rejects Investment Allegations

The Justice Department also dismissed media reports suggesting the case was dropped in exchange for promises of US investments by the Adani Group.

McCotter called those claims "false", stating that the decision to seek dismissal was based solely on legal and policy considerations.

"I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments," he wrote. "The mention of potential investments could not have played any role."

The DOJ urged the court to promptly dismiss the indictment, arguing that continued judicial scrutiny would only prolong uncertainty for defendants facing charges that the government itself no longer believed should proceed.

"In short, there was absolutely nothing improper with the Department's as-filed dismissal motion," McCotter wrote. "The defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago -- or never brought in the first place."