A US federal court on Monday, August 10, dismissed with prejudice the criminal charges against Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain, bringing the nearly two-year-old US criminal case against the three to an end. US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York approved the US Justice Department’s request to abandon the prosecution, meaning the dismissed charges cannot be brought again.
However, while allowing the dismissal, Garaufis expressed concern over “irregularities” in the Justice Department’s decision-making process, particularly the role played by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter. Separately, Gautam and Sagar Adani have agreed to pay a combined $18 million to settle civil securities-fraud allegations brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), without admitting or denying wrongdoing. Gautam Adani welcomed the ruling, saying he did so “with humility and deep respect for the judicial process”. The Adani Group has consistently denied wrongdoing in the case.
Judge Questions
The court’s decision followed months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s decision to abandon a high-profile prosecution inherited from the previous administration. Under US law, federal prosecutors require court permission to dismiss an indictment after it has been filed. Judge Garaufis said he was satisfied that a $10 billion investment pledge made by Adani in the US had not influenced the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case.
However, he questioned the process followed by McCotter, saying the official appeared to have made the decision without seeking the views of prosecutors and investigators who had worked on the case. “The irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning,” Garaufis wrote, adding that McCotter appeared to have set aside the professional opinions of officials across federal agencies in favour of his own judgement.
The Justice Department defended the process, saying McCotter had met defence lawyers and Justice Department lawyers before conducting his own research and analysis. It argued that the case was primarily foreign, difficult to prove and inconsistent with the department’s current enforcement priorities.
Garaufis also made clear that his decision to dismiss the charges should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the Justice Department’s reasoning or as a ruling on whether the original allegations had merit. He said his role in reviewing the prosecution’s decision was limited. The judge further noted that it was for the public to consider what effect offers such as investment commitments could have on the equal administration of justice and the rule of law. His order also reserved a decision on charges against other defendants in the wider case, saying he required additional information before deciding whether those proceedings should be dismissed.
What Were The Allegations Against Adanis?
The legal saga began in November 2024, when US prosecutors unsealed an indictment alleging that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and other associates were involved in a scheme to offer or promise about $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure lucrative solar-energy contracts. Prosecutors alleged that the contracts could have generated billions of dollars in profits over their lifetime. They also accused the Adanis of misleading US and international investors about the group’s anti-corruption practices while raising money through US-linked financial markets.
Separately, other defendants in the case faced allegations relating to obstruction of the investigation, including attempts to destroy evidence. The SEC filed a parallel civil case against Gautam and Sagar Adani, alleging that they made false or misleading statements to investors concerning the company’s anti-bribery compliance. The Adanis denied the allegations.
The criminal proceedings and the civil case have since moved in different directions. In May 2026, Gautam Adani agreed to pay a $6 million civil penalty and Sagar Adani agreed to pay $12 million to settle the SEC case. The settlement was made without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC settlement was separate from the Justice Department’s criminal prosecution and did not amount to a criminal conviction.
The dismissal also follows the Justice Department’s May decision to seek the permanent abandonment of the criminal charges. In its filing, the department said it had reviewed the case and decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to the charges. The decision came after months of legal arguments and meetings between the department and the defendants’ lawyers.
Gautam Adani later acknowledged in a sworn declaration that he had previously pledged to invest $10 billion in the US, while his lawyers told the Justice Department that the group was willing to follow through on that pledge as part of a possible resolution. Garaufis said he found no evidence that the investment pledge influenced the decision, but flagged the broader issue for public consideration.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The dismissal closes an important chapter in a case that attracted global attention because it involved one of India’s most powerful business groups, allegations of corruption and investor deception, and questions about how prosecutorial decisions are made. It is important, however, to distinguish between a case being dismissed and a court finding that the underlying allegations were false: Judge Garaufis expressly said his decision should not be understood as a judgement on the merits of those allegations.
At the same time, his concerns about the process followed by the US Justice Department deserve public scrutiny, because confidence in the rule of law depends not only on outcomes but also on transparent and credible decision-making. Settlements and dismissals can bring legal disputes to a close, but public trust is strengthened when institutions clearly explain why such decisions are made, particularly in cases involving powerful individuals and major corporations. How can governments and courts ensure that decisions involving influential people remain transparent, accountable and trusted by the public?
Also Read: ‘Iran Should Pay’: US President Trump Demands Compensation From Tehran Over ‘50 Years’ Of Damage
I welcome the US court’s decision with humility and deep respect for the judicial process.
— Gautam Adani (@gautam_adani) August 10, 2026
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…
