Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani has filed a sworn affidavit in a New York court denying any secret deal or arrangement for the dismissal of US criminal charges. The filing follows a judge's request for clarification regarding the dropping of an indictment that alleged bribery and misleading investors. The DOJ maintains the dismissal was based on legal and evidentiary challenges rather than external investment commitments.
Gautam Adani, chairman of the Adani Group, has formally declared under oath that he had no knowledge of any agreement or exchange of value tied to the US Department of Justice’s decision to drop criminal charges against him. In a sworn affidavit submitted to the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Adani responded directly to a judicial inquiry regarding whether any undisclosed arrangements influenced the government's motion to dismiss the case.
Court Inquiry and Legal Context
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis had requested that Adani provide clarity on the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the 2024 indictment. This indictment had accused Adani and other individuals of participating in a scheme involving alleged bribes to Indian officials and providing misleading information to US investors during capital-raising activities. The judge sought to ensure the court was fully informed of any factors that might have motivated the Department of Justice to move for a dismissal with prejudice, which prevents the government from bringing the same charges again.
Adani’s affidavit explicitly denies that he or anyone representing him accepted, offered, or sought any promise or agreement in exchange for the dropping of the charges. His legal team at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP had previously engaged with government officials, submitting technical materials and expert reports. While there had been public speculation connecting the group's $10 billion investment plan for the United States—announced on November 13, 2024—to the case outcome, the Department of Justice has formally stated that these investment commitments did not play a role in their decision.
Department of Justice Position
In filings with the court, the Department of Justice, represented by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter, clarified that the motion to dismiss was driven by significant evidentiary and legal hurdles. Prosecutors noted that the alleged conduct was centered in India and that there was a lack of identified investor losses. Furthermore, the government highlighted that the original indictment, which was unsealed in the final stages of the previous US administration, faced criticism regarding its procedural timing.
The Department of Justice has categorically denied that any investment plans influenced the legal determination to seek dismissal, describing the case as legally difficult to maintain. The court process continues as the judge reviews these filings to determine the final resolution of the case. Investors typically monitor such legal proceedings for potential impacts on corporate governance, international capital raising ability, and the overall stability of the group’s global operations.