Gautam Adani has sworn in a US court that no agreement or promise influenced the Department of Justice's decision to drop criminal indictments against him. The filing seeks to clear up speculation linking his proposed $10 billion US investment to the case closure. The DOJ cited legal and evidentiary challenges as the primary reasons for its motion to dismiss.
Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani has formally denied any connection between his planned $10 billion investment in the United States and the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) 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 confirmed he had no knowledge of any deal, offer, or arrangement intended to influence the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Court-Ordered Affidavit Clarifies Case Status
The affidavit was filed following a direct order from US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis. The judge requested the document to verify whether any undisclosed agreements played a role in the Justice Department's move to seek a dismissal. Adani stated under oath that he was unaware of any actions or promises made by any party that would have facilitated the dropping of the charges, which had previously alleged a scheme involving bribe payments to Indian officials and misleading investors.
Investment Timeline and DOJ Stance
Public discourse had linked the Adani Group’s potential $10 billion US investment, announced on November 13, 2024, to the withdrawal of the case. In his filing, Adani noted that the investment plans were public knowledge before the indictment was unsealed. While his legal counsel had discussed the proposed investment with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as part of potential resolution talks, the DOJ explicitly informed the legal team that the investment plan would not be a factor in their decision-making process regarding the indictment.
Legal Challenges Lead to Dismissal
The DOJ’s motion to dismiss the charges, filed in 2024, centered on significant legal hurdles. Prosecutors pointed out that the actions in question primarily occurred within India, that no specific investor losses were documented, and that the matter was already subject to investigation by Indian authorities. Furthermore, the prosecution indicated that the original indictment faced scrutiny as a potentially politically motivated action during the transition between US administrations. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter, the official responsible for the dismissal decision, characterized the securities fraud case as defensible and rejected claims that it was influenced by investment commitments. The court is now reviewing the request for dismissal with prejudice, which would provide a final conclusion to the case.