DOJ defends dropping Adani criminal case

On July 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a 10-page filing to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York defending its move to abandon a criminal case against Gautam Adani and seven co-defendants. The department asked the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice and characterized its internal decision to seek dismissal as "not a close call." The filing described the now-abandoned prosecution as both legally flawed and diplomatically counterproductive.

The case concerned alleged securities-related misconduct, but the DOJ argued that continued judicial scrutiny over its dismissal decision would prolong uncertainty for the defendants. The department framed its request as necessary to end that uncertainty and to respect the executive branch’s authority over criminal charging decisions.

In the filing, prosecutors outlined six overarching reasons for abandoning the case. They emphasized that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, with key evidence and witnesses located abroad. The department argued that this foreign focus created practical and legal obstacles to pursuing the prosecution in a U.S. court.

The DOJ further noted that the defendants were unlikely to appear in a U.S. courtroom, complicating efforts to bring the case to trial. It also pointed to significant evidentiary hurdles, suggesting that the government would face challenges in proving its allegations under U.S. criminal standards.

The department stated that the criminal securities fraud counts against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and others "should never have been brought" because the alleged misconduct occurred almost entirely outside the United States. It said this raised serious questions about U.S. jurisdiction over the conduct at issue.

The DOJ also addressed the impact on investors in the securities central to the case. The filing asserted that investors "suffered no financial losses," stating that "not a single penny has ever been lost." It said two of the notes had been fully repaid, while the remaining notes continued to be serviced.

The filing directly responded to media reports suggesting that the dismissal was tied to proposed Adani investments in the United States. The department called those reports "false" and stated that any mention of potential investments "could not have played any role" in the decision to seek dismissal.

By setting out this position, the DOJ sought to separate its prosecutorial judgment from any implication of trade-offs or external economic considerations. The filing framed the decision as rooted in legal, evidentiary, and jurisdictional analysis rather than business or diplomatic incentives.

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote that requiring prosecutors to publicly justify decisions to dismiss cases could expose privileged internal deliberations. He argued that such a requirement would intrude on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over charging decisions.

The DOJ warned that ongoing judicial demands for explanations in this and similar cases could risk revealing sensitive internal processes. In urging the court to grant dismissal with prejudice, the department positioned its filing as both a case-specific justification and a broader defense of prosecutorial discretion.