New York: The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended its decision to drop the criminal case against Gautam Adani and seven others, telling a federal court that the prosecution was legally weak, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with the current administration’s enforcement priorities.

In a 10-page filing before a US federal court, the DOJ argued that the case “should have been dropped a year ago or never brought in the first place.” The department urged the court to permanently dismiss the charges, saying continued proceedings were not in the interests of justice.

DOJ responds to judge’s questions

The filing came after Nicholas Garaufis, a judge in the US District Court, sought a detailed explanation for the department’s request to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

Judge Garaufis had described the DOJ’s earlier request as “terse, bland, and conclusory”, prompting the department to submit a more comprehensive justification.

In its latest filing, the DOJ maintained that courts have only a limited role in reviewing prosecutorial decisions to dismiss criminal charges.

Case originated under previous administration

The criminal case was initiated in 2024 under the previous US administration.

Federal prosecutors had alleged that Gautam Adani and others were involved in a scheme to pay approximately $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials and made misleading statements to investors to raise billions of dollars in financing.

According to the earlier indictment, Adani Green Energy had raised at least $175 million from US investors during the relevant period.

The allegations were denied by the Adani Group.

DOJ cites multiple reasons for dismissal

The Justice Department outlined six major reasons for seeking dismissal of the case.

According to the filing, the alleged conduct was centred almost entirely in India, while Indian authorities had already examined the matter and found no actionable misconduct.

The department also argued that investors had not suffered financial losses, most witnesses and evidence were located outside the United States, and the defendants were unlikely to appear before a US court.

It further stated that the prosecution faced significant legal and evidentiary challenges.

Describing the matter as “a foreign case”, the DOJ argued that prosecuting such matters in the United States could create unnecessary diplomatic tensions.

Questions raised over jurisdiction

The DOJ also challenged the legal basis for the securities fraud charges brought against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Cyril Cabanes.

The filing argued that the alleged misconduct occurred primarily outside the United States and did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements necessary for criminal prosecution under US securities laws.

It further stated that the statements cited in the indictment largely amounted to corporate “puffery” or general business claims that sophisticated institutional investors were unlikely to rely upon when making investment decisions.

According to the DOJ, if any enforcement action had been appropriate, it would have been civil rather than criminal in nature.

Policy shift under current administration

The department also cited changes in enforcement priorities under a June 2025 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The memo directed prosecutors to prioritise cases involving national security, organised crime, significant misconduct or direct harm to US companies.

The DOJ argued that the allegations against Adani did not meet those criteria, adding that the matter had already been examined by Indian authorities.

The filing also rejected media reports suggesting that the dismissal was linked to investment commitments by the Adani Group in the United States, describing such claims as false.

DOJ urges court to end proceedings

The department asked the court to dismiss the case without further delay, arguing that continuing judicial scrutiny would only prolong uncertainty for defendants facing charges that prosecutors no longer believed should proceed.

It reiterated that the dismissal was based solely on legal and policy considerations and maintained there was “absolutely nothing improper” about its request.

Conclusion

The US Department of Justice has strongly defended its decision to abandon the criminal case against Gautam Adani and others, arguing that the prosecution lacked a sound legal basis and did not align with current enforcement priorities. The federal court will now decide whether to accept the DOJ’s request to dismiss the case with prejudice.