After 14 months of diplomatic procedures marked by objections from the Indian government that hindered the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from initiating further action against Indian tycoon Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani over charges arising from a $750 million bond offering that raised approximately $175 million from US investors, the SEC moved a federal court to bypass diplomatic channels and permit alternative service of summonses.
In a motion filed on January 21 before the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the SEC sought permission to serve the Adanis through their US-based legal counsel and by email, signalling that its effort to rely on the Hague Convention route through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice had effectively collapsed, The Wire reported.
The agency argued that it no longer expects service to be completed under the Convention, noting that nearly a year of exchanges with India’s designated Central Authority had yielded no progress.
The enforcement action arises from a civil complaint filed by the SEC on November 20, 2024, which accused Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Green Energy Ltd, and Sagar Adani, its executive director, of orchestrating a bribery scheme involving substantial payments or promises to Indian government officials.
The allegations relate to a September 2021 bond offering, in which the company raised more than $175 million from US investors, with the SEC asserting that disclosures about the firm’s anti-corruption safeguards were materially misleading in light of the alleged conduct.
Parallel criminal charges were filed the same day by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, alleging securities fraud conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy and substantive securities fraud, while the Adani Group publicly rejected the allegations and stated that it would pursue all available legal remedies.
The SEC initially invoked the Hague Convention on February 17, 2025, submitting formal service requests to India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, which forwarded them to a court in Ahmedabad.
However, the requests were returned unexecuted in April 2025, with the ministry citing the absence of seals and signatures, an objection the SEC maintained was unsupported by the Convention. A resubmitted request in May 2025 drew no response, and subsequent follow-ups in April and September were similarly unanswered.
In December 2025, the ministry raised a further objection, contending that the summonses did not fall within categories permitted under an internal SEC regulation, an argument the agency dismissed as irrelevant to international service procedures.
Faced with what it described as a dead end, the SEC is now asking the court to authorise service under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that delivery through established US counsel and business email addresses would provide effective notice to defendants who are demonstrably aware of the proceedings and actively coordinating their legal response.