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.

U.S. judge ends graft case against Gautam Adani

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

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

The key allegation against Google is that its “arrangements” with Apple and other companies to be the default search engine on their devices, is unlawful monopoly building. File
| Photo Credit: AP

The story so far: On September 12, Justice Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia started hearing what is being described as the most important case about the future of the Internet. Over the course of the next 10 weeks, Justice Mehta will hear arguments of the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and several U.S. States to the effect that Google used illegal tactics to maintain a monopoly in online search. Several top officials from Google, including CEO Sundar Pichai, are expected to be called in as witnesses. If the allegations against the $1.7 trillion Silicon Valley giant are upheld, Justice Mehta will begin a separate trial to decide on the action that needs to be taken. Other mega Internet companies such as Amazon and Meta are keenly watching the trial, as it will have major implications on how their own ‘anti-trust’ issues are dealt with.

What is the charge against Google?

The key allegation against Google is that its “arrangements” with Apple and other companies to be the default search engine on their devices, is unlawful monopoly building. The DoJ filed the charges on October 20, 2020, arguing that Google throttled competition from other search engines and caused harm to consumers, making it a prime anti-trust — targeting monopolies — case. “Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy start-up with an innovative way to search the emerging internet. That Google is long gone,” the DoJ had said in its initial filing.

Since the extent of harm that has been caused to consumers is the key deciding factor in anti-trust cases, the DoJ is expected to show how the default search position for Google on various devices limited options available to consumers. Focus may also fall on how a lot of the real estate on Google’s search result pages is often taken up by the company’s own non-search services — such as user reviews — at the cost of rival services. Google’s default position also creates a ‘feedback loop’ in which consumers are regularly giving the search engine their personal preferences, allowing Google to fine-tune its algorithm and deliver better search results and advertisements. “Google’s contracts ensure that rivals cannot match the search quality ad monetisation, especially on phones,” Kenneth Dintzer, the main lawyer for the DoJ in this case told the Associated Press. “Through this feedback loop, this wheel has been turning for more than 12 years. It always turns to Google’s advantage.”

However, Google argues that the reason it controls 91% of the global search market is that it provides better quality of services, rather than a lack of competition. Google says that consumers can always choose to change the default option, and that any deals it has with device manufacturers like Apple are above board.

Is there a deal between Apple and Google?

While both Apple and Google have been secretive about their cooperation, several reports indicate that such a deal was renewed in 2017. According to The New York Times, while Google paid Apple to the tune of $1 billion in 2014, the latter now receives between $8 billion and $12 billion, amounting to 9% of its annual gross profits. Google’s willingness to pay such a huge amount is driven by the fact that 75% of its search revenue comes from iPhone and iPad users. It is also a precautionary measure as it holds back the creation of a rival search engine by Apple, one of the few companies that have the wherewithal to take on Google.

Google also understands a key lesson from behavioural economics — most people will not bother to change the default options made available to them.

Why is there a ‘techlash’ on anti-trust issues?

Google is no stranger to anti-trust cases, though not in the U.S. In 2017, it was fined $2.7 billion by the European Union for showing undue preference for its own services in search results. The EU has imposed a total fine of 8.25 billion euros on Google over three anti-trust investigations. The EU has also trained its anti-trust guns on other U.S. online giants such as Meta and Amazon.

On the other hand, the U.S. has been slow to act against homegrown behemoths, who also spend considerable amounts of money and effort on political lobbying. However, a massive ‘techlash’ has been building up in the U.S. in recent years with calls from both sides of the political aisle to restrict the influence that these companies can exert on aspects ranging from teenage mental health to personal privacy and the success of small businesses.

The current case against Google has the potential to redefine how anti-trust laws are wielded in the technology era against new business models. A key test of consumer harm under anti-trust law is the amount of monetary loss that has been sustained by consumers due to the monopolistic behaviour of companies. However, Google offers its search services for free. It remains to be seen how the DoJ, which has another anti-trust case in the pipeline against Google over its dominance in online advertising, will prove its point on consumer harm in this case.

Why are anti-trust cases important?

Anti-trust cases have the potential to completely revamp a sector of the economy. Such cases in the U.S. also have far reaching impact across the globe. The last major anti-trust case was over two decades ago, when the U.S. government took on the Bill Gates-led Microsoft that had near-total monopoly over the operating systems running personal computers.

Also read |Google fails to end $5 billion consumer privacy lawsuit

In 1995, the Internet revolution was taking off with the Netscape browser being the key software for accessing the World Wide Web. Microsoft tried to squeeze out Netscape by bundling its Internet Explorer web browser for free with its Windows OS. The government took Microsoft to court in 1998, and in 2001 arrived at a deal that made Microsoft keep a more open Windows environment. Critics of this case say that it did not do much to shake Microsoft’s monopoly; Netscape lost its market leadership and eventually morphed into the Firefox browser from Mozilla Foundation. Others, however, say that the open environment that the deal ensured saw to it that Microsoft did not crush the smaller technology companies that were developing products around the Internet, including one that was formed in 1998 in a garage in Menlo Park, California — Google.