Gautam Adani, Chairman of the Adani Group, has categorically denied under oath any suggestion of a promise, agreement, or deal linked to the US Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss criminal charges against him and others. In a sworn affidavit filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Adani stated that he was not aware of anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to, or accepted by anyone in connection with the dismissal of the indictment.
The affidavit was submitted in response to an order issued by US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis on July 8, directing Gautam Adani to clarify under oath whether he had any knowledge of any promise, offer, agreement, or exchange of value related to the dropping of the charges. The court sought this assurance before deciding on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, aiming to ensure that the government’s reasons for withdrawal were genuine and free from any undisclosed arrangements.
The criminal indictment, filed in November 2024 during the final days of the Biden administration, had accused Adani and seven others of participating in a scheme involving approximately USD 250 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure power supply contracts. It also alleged that the group misled investors while raising capital in US markets. The Adani Group has consistently denied all allegations, describing them as baseless.
The announcement of the indictment had triggered a sharp sell-off in Adani Group stocks, wiping out nearly ₹ 2.85 lakh crore in market capitalisation over four trading sessions and affecting millions of shareholders.
Addressing speculation surrounding the dismissal, Gautam Adani highlighted that the Adani Group’s intention to invest USD 10 billion in the United States was publicly announced on November 13, 2024, well before the indictment was unsealed. His legal counsel from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP had engaged with officials from the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, submitting a white paper and expert reports. While the counsel indicated that the proposed investment could potentially form part of a broader resolution if considered by US authorities, the Justice Department explicitly informed them that the investment plans would not influence the decision to seek dismissal. Adani affirmed in the affidavit that the investment proposal played no role in the department’s final decision to withdraw the case.
In a filing on July 4, the Department of Justice had already rejected media reports linking the case dismissal to Adani Group’s investment commitments, terming such claims false. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter, who described himself as the final decision-maker, stated that he would have sought dismissal regardless of any mentions of investments. He cited several legal and evidentiary challenges, including that the alleged conduct was largely centred in India, involved no identified investor losses, and was already under investigation by Indian authorities.
Additionally, he noted that charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act did not align with the current Trump administration’s enforcement priorities, which focus on national security, American companies, and transnational criminal organisations.
Judge Garaufis had observed that McCotter’s filing introduced, for the first time, the possibility of some form of agreement, prompting the need for Adani’s sworn clarification. The judge emphasised that before approving the dismissal under Rule 48(a), the court must be satisfied that no undisclosed agreement influenced the Justice Department’s move.
With the affidavit now on record, the court is expected to take a decision on the motion to dismiss the proceedings with prejudice, which would bring the matter to a final close.
The development marks a significant step in resolving the high-profile case that had drawn international attention and impacted investor sentiment in Indian markets. The Adani Group has maintained that the charges lacked merit and welcomed the Justice Department’s decision to drop them.
