The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has strongly defended its decision to drop criminal bribery charges against Gautam Adani, citing evidentiary weakness, jurisdictional overreach, and constitutional limits on judicial power. US legal expert Adam Goldberg, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, stated that the DoJ's detailed reply leaves the court with little room to reject the dismissal.
DoJ's Reasoning for Dropping Charges
In its reply, the DoJ argued that the case falls outside the clearly delineated priorities of the current administration. According to Goldberg, "The most significant is likely the fact that the case falls outside the very clearly delineated priorities of this administration. There was no national security basis, no tie to transnational criminal organizations." He noted that under the Trump administration, the DoJ reset its priorities for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement, focusing on different areas. The Adani case did not align with these priorities.
Goldberg also highlighted that no US investors were harmed. "People made money, nobody lost money. Had significant US investors lost money, there would have been a different discussion," he said. Additionally, Indian authorities investigated the allegations and found no misconduct, further weakening the case.
Evidentiary and Jurisdictional Challenges
The DoJ emphasized that the case was weak due to evidentiary problems, with most alleged evidence based in India, making US prosecution difficult. Prosecutors argued that the alleged conduct occurred in India and was not appropriate for US involvement. The DoJ also stated that forcing prosecutors to detail their reasoning could undermine constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions.
Goldberg explained that under Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, courts must approve dismissals but cannot second-guess the executive branch's prosecutorial decisions. "It is very unusual in the United States for the courts to tell the Department of Justice that they cannot stop a prosecution that they do not wish to prosecute," he said.
Court's Likely Response
Given the DoJ's detailed explanation, Goldberg believes the court will quickly close the case. "It would be very unusual if the court did something other than close the case quickly," he said. The DoJ's reply laid out multiple bases for dismissal, including difficulties in pursuing the case, jurisdictional issues, the Indian investigation, and lack of harm to US investors. "Given the amount of detail the Department of Justice provided, it would be even more unusual for the court to say no," Goldberg added.
The case against Gautam Adani and others alleged a bribery scheme linked to solar power contracts in India, which supposedly misled US investors. In May 2025, the DoJ moved to dismiss the charges, and the US Court of the Eastern District of New York requested a reply. With the DoJ's response solidifying its position, legal experts expect the judge to approve the dismissal.
