US judge dismisses Gautam Adani criminal case with prejudice
US Court Ends Criminal Case Against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani
A US federal court has permanently ended the criminal case against Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and former Adani Green Energy chief executive Vneet Jaain, closing a legal battle that began with an indictment in November 2024.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York approved the Justice Department’s request under Rule 48(a) to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. The order means the criminal charges cannot be brought again on the same allegations. The case ended before a trial took place, so the court did not decide whether the original bribery and fraud allegations were true.
The charges included conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. US prosecutors had accused Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain and others of taking part in a scheme involving more than USD 250 million in alleged bribes to Indian government officials. Prosecutors said the payments were intended to help secure solar power contracts expected to produce more than USD 2 billion in after-tax profits over about 20 years.
The Justice Department also alleged that investors were given misleading information while the companies raised more than USD 3 billion through loans and bond offerings. Its November 2024 indictment said the financing included more than USD 2 billion in syndicated loans and more than USD 1 billion through two Rule 144A bond offerings. The defendants denied wrongdoing.
The case took a different turn after the US Justice Department asked the court to abandon the prosecution. Prosecutors told the court that continuing the case was no longer in the interests of justice. They pointed to questions over US jurisdiction, difficulties in proving the case, the fact that most of the alleged conduct took place in India, investigations by Indian authorities and wider public-interest concerns.
The government also argued that the case had limited prospects of reaching trial. It described the November 2024 indictment, issued during the final weeks of the Joe Biden administration, as a politically motivated “name and shame” exercise.
Judge Garaufis did not accept every reason given by the government. He found that one legal argument was enough to support dismissal. The government had argued that statements concerning Adani Green’s anti-bribery policies and compliance practices could be treated as “inactionable puffery”, meaning broad corporate statements that investors could not reasonably rely upon.
The judge found other arguments less persuasive. One involved whether US securities laws could apply when most of the alleged conduct took place in India. The court noted that the indictment itself alleged that investors put money into the transactions in the United States and that the US financial system was involved. The judge also found that the government’s argument that there was no deception of sophisticated investors did not provide sufficient support on its own.
Before allowing the case to end, Garaufis asked the Justice Department to explain its decision publicly. He also required sworn statements from the defendants confirming that there had been no promise, offer, quid pro quo or secret agreement connected to the decision to drop the prosecution.
Gautam Adani provided such a declaration and denied that any such arrangement existed. The judge also examined whether Adani’s November 2024 commitment to invest USD 10 billion in the United States had influenced the Justice Department. Garaufis said he was satisfied that the investment pledge had not played a role in the decision.
The judge also noted that courts have limited authority when reviewing a federal prosecutor’s decision to end a criminal case. After examining the government’s explanation and the sworn declarations, he approved the dismissal.
For Adani, the ruling closes the criminal proceedings, but it does not erase the allegations from the history of the case. No witnesses gave evidence at trial, prosecutors did not have to prove their accusations before a jury, and the judge made no finding that the alleged bribery scheme occurred.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission also brought a separate civil case. In May 2026, the SEC said Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani agreed to final judgments without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC had accused them of making false or misleading statements about Adani Green Energy’s anti-bribery compliance in connection with a 2021 bond offering. Gautam Adani agreed to pay USD 6 million, while Sagar Adani agreed to pay USD 12 million.
The criminal case had also unfolded during a period of heavy scrutiny of the Adani Group. In January 2023, Hindenburg Research accused the conglomerate of stock manipulation, accounting problems and other financial misconduct. Adani Group rejected those allegations. The market reaction was severe, with more than USD 100 billion wiped from the combined value of listed Adani companies during the sell-off. Estimates of the peak loss varied, with some reports putting the fall at around USD 150 billion.
The November 2024 US indictment added a separate legal issue around alleged bribery and investor disclosures. The Justice Department stressed at the time that the accusations were allegations and that the defendants were presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Adani welcomed the latest court decision. In a post on X, he said:
“Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering. My deepest gratitude to those who never lost faith in us, in the system and in India’s capacity for justice. We will continue doing what matters: building for our nation, creating value that outlasts us and serving a purpose larger than ourselves. That is our commitment,”
The ruling gives Gautam Adani and the Adani Group a clear end to the US criminal prosecution. The separate SEC judgment remains part of the legal record, while the court’s dismissal means the criminal charges covered by the case cannot simply be filed again.
