The US Justice Department's attempt to abandon a criminal prosecution against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and several others accused of orchestrating a US$250 million bribery scheme has come under fresh judicial scrutiny, after a federal judge directed the tycoon to personally disclose whether he was aware of any understanding or assurance connected with the government's bid to drop the case.
In an order issued on July 8, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York said recent submissions by the Justice Department had raised the "spectre" of a possible undisclosed arrangement connected to the proposed dismissal of the indictment.
He directed Gautam Adani to submit a sworn affidavit by July 15 answering whether he knew of anything "promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to, or accepted" in connection with the dismissal, and whether he was aware of any agreement involving an exchange of benefits for dropping the charges.
The order follows a 10-page filing by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who said he was the "final and sole decision-maker" behind the department's move to dismiss the November 2024 indictment with prejudice.
McCotter rejected allegations that Adani's proposed investments in the US had influenced the decision, describing such claims as false and maintaining that he had resolved to abandon the securities charges before the investment issue surfaced.
However, McCotter acknowledged that the subject of investments had been discussed, arguing that defence lawyers were entitled to note that the indictment had effectively prevented the defendants from accessing US financial markets for 18 months despite their previously stated intention to invest in the country.
Judge Garaufis observed that these assertions introduced a new dimension to the proceedings, noting that an earlier letter from Adani's counsel supporting dismissal had made no reference to any agreement, including one involving investments in exchange for the charges being withdrawn.
The judge reiterated that before approving the government's request under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court must be satisfied that the reasons advanced for dismissal are genuine and substantial, describing the provision as an essential judicial safeguard against arbitrary executive action.
The latest development comes after Judge Garaufis previously criticised the Justice Department's original request as "terse, bland and conclusory" and sought a fuller explanation.
While prosecutors argued that Indian authorities had already examined many of the allegations, the Indian judicial and regulatory decisions cited in support did not address the alleged bribery conspiracy central to the US indictment, instead disposing of unrelated proceedings on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.