Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani has denied under oath that there was any promise, agreement or deal behind the U.S. Department of Justice’s move to dismiss a criminal indictment against him, saying, in a sworn affidavit, that he was unaware of any exchange connected to the decision.
The affidavit was filed in response to a July 8 order by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asking Mr. Adani to state under oath whether he was aware of any promise, offer or agreement related to the dismissal of the indictment.
Mr. Adani said he was not aware of “anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to, or accepted” by anyone in connection with the dismissal, and denied knowledge of any agreement involving an exchange of anything of value for dropping the criminal charges.
The Justice Department had moved to dismiss charges filed in 2024 under the Biden administration, accusing Mr. Adani and seven others of participating in a scheme to pay about $250 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure power supply contracts and misleading investors while raising capital in U.S. markets.
Mr. Adani has denied the allegations.
Addressing speculation over Adani Group’s proposed U.S. investment plans, Adani said the group’s intention to invest $10 billion in the United States had been publicly announced on November 13, 2024, before the indictment was unsealed.
According to the affidavit, Mr. Adani’s legal counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, held meetings with officials from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and submitted a white paper, expert reports and other materials.
The counsel also indicated that the proposed investment could potentially form part of a resolution if U.S. authorities chose to consider it.
The DoJ later informed counsel that the proposed investment would not be considered in deciding whether to seek dismissal, and Mr. Adani said the investment plan played no role in the department’s decision.
The affidavit follows a July 4 filing by the DoJ in which prosecutors rejected reports linking the dismissal of the case to investment commitments in the U.S., calling such claims false.
Also read: Gautam Adani agrees to $18 million penalty in U.S. bribery case
The department said the prosecution faced legal and evidentiary challenges, including that the alleged conduct was largely centred in India, involved no identified investor losses, and was already subject to investigations in India.
The DoJ also told the court that the indictment appeared to have been unsealed during the final days of the Joe Biden administration as a “name-and-shame” action, leaving the matter for the succeeding Donald Trump Administration.
The indictment, announced in November 2024, triggered a sharp sell-off in Adani Group stocks, wiping out nearly Rs 2.85 lakh crore in market capitalisation over four trading sessions and affecting millions of shareholders.
The Department of Justice has since sought dismissal of the criminal proceedings with prejudice, which would bring the case to a final close.
The affidavit was filed in response to a directive from U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who sought clarity on whether Adani was aware of any promise, offer, agreement or benefit linked to the Justice Department’s decision to seek dismissal of criminal charges against him.
Judge Garaufis had directed Mr. Adani to submit the affidavit by July 15 before deciding on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. The judge asked Mr. Adani to disclose whether any exchange, arrangement or understanding was connected to the government’s move to drop the charges.
The order followed a filing by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, who said he was the “final and sole decision-maker” behind the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case and rejected media reports that the decision was linked to Adani Group’s plans to invest about $10 billion in the United States.
“The current or former Department attorneys…have suggested that I sought dismissal of the securities charges at least in part because of some promise by those defendants to invest money in the United States. That is false,” Mr. McCotter wrote.
“I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments,” he added.
“The mention of potential investments could not have played any role.” Mr. McCotter said he sought dismissal because the securities fraud case was legally “indefensible”, arguing that most of the alleged conduct occurred in India, Indian authorities had found no actionable misconduct, investors had suffered no losses, key evidence and witnesses were outside the United States, and the defendants were unlikely to appear before a U.S. court.
He also said charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act no longer aligned with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities, which focus on cases involving U.S. national security, American companies or transnational criminal organisations.
Judge Garaufis, however, said Mr. McCotter’s filing introduced “for the first time” the possibility that some form of agreement involving one or more defendants may have existed in connection with the dismissal, even though no such arrangement had been disclosed to the court.
The judge said Mr. Adani’s lawyers had earlier explained why the defendants consented to the government’s motion to dismiss, but had made no reference to any agreement, including one involving a commitment to invest in the United States.
Before approving the government’s request under Rule 48 (a), Judge Garaufis said the court must be satisfied that the Justice Department’s reasons for seeking dismissal are genuine and that no undisclosed agreement influenced its decision.
Published – July 15, 2026 10:08 pm IST
