EDNY BROOKLYN, June 29 — Federal Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York
has refused to rubber-stamp the Trump Justice Department's
one-sentence motion to dismiss the $250 million bribery
case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven
co-defendants, directing the Government by July 13 to
provide its actual reasons for abandoning the case.
In a five-page Memorandum & Order
issued June 26 (Dkt. 36), Garaufis called the Government's
justification — that DOJ "has decided, in its
prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources
to these criminal charges" — "terse, bland, and
conclusory," adding that it "affords the court neither a
sufficient basis to reach any conclusion, nor the
opportunity to conduct any analysis."
The case, 24-CR-0433, charges Gautam Adani,
Chairman of the Adani conglomerate and his nephew Sagar
Adani, along with six others, with conspiring to pay over
$250 million in bribes to Indian government officials to
secure solar energy contracts, and with defrauding U.S.
and international investors by concealing that bribery
scheme while raising billions in financing. The 54-page
indictment, returned October 24, 2024 and unsealed
November 20, charges five counts including FCPA
conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction.
No defendant has ever appeared before the court.
In footnote 2 of Judge Garaufis's order he
wrote that it "acknowledges receipt of a letter from
counsel for Defendants Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and
Jaain providing context for, and describing their reasons
for consenting to, the Government's motion. (June 24, 2026
Ltr. to the Ct. (Dkt. 35).)" The order adds that "the
court appreciates counsel's many arguments in favor of the
motion."
That letter — Dkt. 35 — does not appear on
CourtListener nor, at least initially on PACER (even with
its new 12 cents a page increase over the previous dime).
Inner City Press, which has covered
this case and the court, wrote to Judge Garaufis on June
27 requesting Dkt. 35. To his Chambers' credit, the letter
was provided and Inner City Press immediately publishes it
on its DocumentCloud, here.
Adani's many lawyers conclude: "the DOJ
would not be able to prove the alleged bribery in India
that underpins all the charges. In meetings with the DOJ,
counsel presented expert evidence from a former
Chairperson of the Central Electricity Authority in India
and Member of the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission, demonstrating that the allegedly illegal
payments supposedly took place at or around the same time
as documented, lawful, and transparent price reductions
that Adani Green and Azure Power Global Ltd. (“Azureâ€)
indisputably provided to incentivize Indian state power
companies to sign solar energy contracts. The expert
report explained that those price reductions were
ordinary, lawful concessions that Adani Green offered to
Indian state government power agencies to incentivize them
to finalize these energy deals. The primary evidence in
the Indictment appears to have been gathered from Azure,
Adani Green’s competitor. But Azure is a troubled company,
with a history of alleged misconduct and witnesses who
have limited, if any, firsthand knowledge of material
facts and are of dubious credibility. Accordingly, the DOJ
now acts within its considerable discretion in moving for
dismissal."
Judge Garaufis previously docketed Inner
City Press' request for a listen-only call-in line for a
Raneire case sentencing (albeit later denying the
request). His Chambers is responsive, and it is
appreciated.
The government's one-sentence justification
for abandoning an FCPA prosecution this size has already
drawn attention. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires leave of court to dismiss an
indictment, and courts — including the SDNY in United
States v. Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) —
have held that the Government cannot simply announce a
political decision and expect a court to sign off without
explanation. See also Inner City Press' book, Sovereign
District?
What the defense said in its sealed letter
to help Garaufis reach that conclusion — and why those
arguments were not enough to persuade the court to simply
grant the motion — is now the open question. Inner City
Press has asked that the defense be directed to respond to
the unsealing request, and that Dkt. 35 be made
public. The Government's deadline to provide its
reasoning is July 13, 2026.
