The U.S. Department of Justice has permanently dropped all criminal charges against Indian tycoon Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar, bringing the high-profile securities and wire fraud case in New York to a complete close after prosecutors concluded they could not sustain the allegations.

With this, multiple U.S. regulatory and legal investigations involving the group have all closed in the last couple of days.

Last week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission settled civil allegations against the two men tied to disclosures made to investors in connection with solar energy projects in India. Court filings showed Gautam Adani agreed to pay $6 million and Sagar Adani $12 million, without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Thereafter, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) settled allegations of the Adani Group violating U.S. sanctions on Iran in LPG imports. This followed the Indian conglomerate agreeing to pay $275 million while extending “extensive cooperation” with the investigation and making “proactive” disclosures.

Now, the U.S. prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York dropped all charges against Gautam Adani and his nephew, Sagar Adani.

In a filing before the court, the U.S. Department of Justice requested the dismissal of the indictment against the Adanis with prejudice.

“The Department of Justice has reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants,” it said.

Thereafter, the court ordered that the indictment against Adani and others “be dismissed with prejudice”.

The closure marks a dramatic turn in a case that had threatened to disrupt the Adani Group’s global expansion plans. The SEC and DOJ cases, filed in late 2024, alleged the Adanis orchestrated a $265 million bribery scheme involving Indian officials to secure solar power contracts and concealed the arrangement from U.S. investors and lenders while raising capital.

The dismissal was “with prejudice”, preventing the case from being reopened.

Such dismissals are uncommon in U.S. criminal proceedings and typically reflect a determination that pursuing the case is no longer warranted after extensive review.

The case turned in Adani’s favour after prosecutors found no clear U.S. linkages and insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, according to people familiar with the matter.

The anticipated decision follows months of aggressive engagement between U.S. prosecutors and a formidable legal team assembled by the Adanis.

Five American legal counsel from Sullivan & Cromwell, alongside Nixon Peabody, Hecker Fink, Norton Rose Fulbright and Bracewell, made a series of submissions and presentations to U.S. authorities as part of the review process. The review failed to produce findings capable of sustaining charges against Gautam and Sagar Adani, prompting the DoJ to move towards dismissal.

In submissions disclosed publicly on April 7, 2026, before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Adani’s lawyers mounted a forceful challenge to the U.S. SEC’s fraud-related proceedings, calling them an “impermissibly extraterritorial application” of U.S. securities laws. The defence argued the case involved “Indian Defendants, an Indian issuer”, securities not traded on U.S. exchanges and alleged conduct occurring “exclusively in India”.

The filings stated the SEC “lacked necessary jurisdiction”, failed to establish actionable misstatements and could not tie either defendant to the bond offering. The lawyers asserted the SEC had “recast” unviable anti-bribery allegations into securities fraud claims. The submissions noted there were “no investor losses”, all bond obligations were honoured and Gautam Adani “did not authorise the issuance of the bonds”.

The case had faced mounting scrutiny from legal experts over whether prosecutors had stretched securities laws to pursue conduct centred overseas.

Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain were charged only under securities and wire fraud statutes (counts 2, 3 and 4). They were not named in the more serious Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bribery charge or obstruction-related count (counts 1 and 5), which prosecutors brought against other defendants in the wider case.

The Adani Group has consistently rejected the allegations as meritless, defending its governance and compliance standards while pledging to contest the proceedings through legal channels.

That distinction, along with no U.S. linkages, increasingly moulded criticism of the government’s legal approach. Former SEC commissioner Laura Unger argued that authorities had effectively attempted to predicate a securities fraud case on allegations of bribery that had neither been adjudicated nor formally pursued in India.

Published – May 18, 2026 10:38 pm IST

The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday (December 19, 2025) published thousands of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, a release long anticipated for its potential to reveal new details about the late sex offender and his connections to powerful people.

But it was clear soon after the release that it would fall far short of those expectations. The partial release angered Democrats who accused the Trump administration of trying to hide information. The Justice Department said it would continue releasing documents in the weeks ahead.

The file dump — dominated by photographs, but also including call logs, court records and other documents, many with redactions — comes after politicians and the public waged a massive campaign for transparency about the government’s investigations into the wealthy financier.

President Donald Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had a falling-out, tried for months to keep the records sealed. Though he hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, he has argued there is nothing to see in the files and the public should focus on other issues.

On November 19, relenting to political pressure from his fellow Republicans, he signed a bill mandating the release of most of the Justice Department’s files on Epstein within 30 days. The White House said Friday’s release of the files shows how the administration is the “most transparent in history.”

Here are some takeaways about the Justice Department’s initial Epstein file release:

It includes thousands of photos, but far fewer files than expected

The law signed by Mr. Trump last month set Friday (December 19, 2025) as the deadline for the Justice Department to release most of its files about Epstein.

Ahead of the release, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News he expected several hundred thousand files to be released Friday, along with several hundred thousand more to come later.

But the number of files that actually landed on the Justice Department’s website seemed to be a thin slice of the total number expected. Blanche acknowledged in a letter to Congress that the production of files was incomplete. The department said it expected to complete its production of Epstein documents by the end of the year.

Among the documents made public are around 4,000 files — mostly photographs — under a subset the Justice Department described as “DOJ Disclosures.” The vast majority of the photographs were taken by the FBI during searches of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the US Virgin Islands.

Also included were images of envelopes, folders and boxes containing investigative materials from various probes related to Epstein. Many records are redacted and anything containing a victim’s personally identifiable information, including materials depicting sexual and physical abuse, isn’t authorised for release.

Various other files released by the Justice Department on Friday include court records, public records and disclosures to House committees. At least some of that material has already circulated in the public domain after years of court action and investigations.

Multiple photographs show former President Bill Clinton

Many of the most discussed photos from the files show the former Democratic president. Clinton has acknowledged that he traveled on Epstein’s private jet but said through a spokesperson that he had no knowledge of the late financier’s crimes.

Some of the photos show Mr. Clinton on a private plane, including one with a woman sitting on his lap. Her face is redacted from the photo.

Another photo shows him in a pool with British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been convicted of luring young girls to Epstein so he could molest them, and with another person whose face is redacted. One shows him with the late pop star Michael Jackson, singer Diana Ross and a woman whose face is redacted.

And another shows Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face is redacted. The Justice Department did not explain how those photos were related to the criminal investigation.

Nevertheless, senior White House aides quickly called attention to them on X.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, wrote “Oh my!” and added a shocked face emoji in response to the photo of Mr. Clinton in the hot tub.

Angel Ureña, Mr. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, said in an X post that “this isn’t about Bill Clinton” and accused the White House of trying to protect others.

“There are two types of people here,” he wrote. “The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first.” Clinton has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and the mere inclusion of someone’s name or images in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise.

No new revelations about Trump or others

To some exploring the records released Friday, the most interesting parts were which high-profile figures appeared scarcely — or not at all.

For example, Trump is minimally referenced in the files, and the small number of photos that do show him appear to have been in the public domain for decades.

The release does include at least one photo of the former Prince Andrew, who appears in a tuxedo lying on the laps of what appear to be several women who are seated, dressed in formalwear. One of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, accused Epstein of arranging for her to have sexual encounters with men, including the prince.

Marina Lacerda, one of the women who says she survived sexual assault by Epstein, beginning when she was 14 years old, said Friday she wanted to see greater transparency from the Justice Department and expressed frustration over redactions and the incomplete release.

“Just put out the files,” she said. “And stop redacting names that don’t need to be redacted.”

Partial release upsets some lawmakers

Several lawmakers blasted the Trump administration for failing to produce all the documents required under the law.

Reps Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., had introduced what is known as a discharge petition, which eventually led to the congressional vote that forced the release of the Epstein files. On Friday, both took to social media to criticise the partial release.

Massie wrote that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.” Khanna called the release so far “disappointing.” “We’re going to push for the actual documents,” he said.

Sen Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said that by disregarding the deadline, the administration was denying justice to Epstein’s victims. He added he was “exploring all avenues and legal tools to get justice for the victims and transparency for the American people.” If Democratic lawmakers so choose, they could go to court to force the Justice Department to comply with the law, but that would almost certainly be a lengthy process that plays out while the department releases more files.

Separately, the House Oversight Committee has issued a subpoena for the Epstein files. That could give Congress another avenue to force the release of more information to the committee, but it would require Republicans to join them in contempt-of-Congress proceedings against a Republican administration.

The US Justice Department fired more than a dozen officials who worked on investigations that former Special Counsel Jack Smith led into Donald Trump’s actions following the president’s 2020 election loss.

Acting Attorney General James McHenry removed the officials because he didn’t believe those staff members could be trusted to implement the president’s agenda due to their roles in the investigations, a department spokesperson said in a statement.

Smith conducted two investigations into Trump’s actions, both of which resulted in indictments. One case alleged that Trump illegally tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The other alleged that Trump mishandled classified documents and obstructed justice after leaving the White House in 2021.

Trump and his allies blasted Smith’s investigations, often describing them and other actions they disliked as examples of how the former Biden administration “weaponized” the government against conservatives.

One of the first executive orders that Trump issued after taking office last week was to root out individuals who he perceived to be political enemies.

It was not immediately clear which officials on Smith’s team had been fired.

Smith dropped both cases against Trump after he was reelected president, citing a Justice Department policy that prohibits the prosecution of sitting presidents.

The firings are in addition to officials who were notified last week that they’re being reassigned to work on Trump’s top priorities, especially immigration enforcement, according to a person who asked to remain anonymous to speak about personnel matters.

The firings were earlier reported by Fox News.

Meanwhile, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin has launched an internal review of the use of certain felony obstruction charges in prosecutions of people who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, according to a person familiar with that move.

Martin was a vocal critic of the Jan. 6 prosecutions and an advocate for defendants before he was appointed to lead the DC office that had overseen that effort over the past four years. Trump signed a mass clemency order for the more than 1,500 people charged in the Capitol attack on his first day in office, pardoning nearly everyone who was convicted and ordering pending cases dismissed.

A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office did not immediately return a request for comment. Martin’s announcement was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Justice Department has threatened local and state authorities with prosecution if they fail to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, which include a pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Citing a constitutional clause concerning division of power, acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove said in a memorandum that “federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands.”

“The Department of Justice shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution,” Bove added in the memo issued late Tuesday and published by US media on Wednesday.

Trump announced severe new restrictions on immigration and asylum in the United States hours after taking office on Monday, including a plan to send troops to the US-Mexico border and end birthright citizenship.

The Republican president vowed during his White House campaign to carry out the largest mass deportation of migrants in US history.

Bove said a newly created Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group would identify “state and local laws, policies, and activities that are inconsistent with Executive Branch immigration initiatives and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.”

A number of Democratic-controlled “sanctuary cities” in the United States restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“Laws and actions that threaten to impede Executive Branch immigration initiatives, including by prohibiting disclosures of information to federal authorities engaged in immigration enforcement activities, threaten public safety and national security,” Bove said.

Bove, who served as one of Trump’s personal lawyers before being named to the Justice Department, also directed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces to participate “in the execution of President Trump’s immigration-related initiatives.”

The FBI and other agencies should “review their files for identifying information and/or biometric data relating to non-citizens located illegally in the United States” and turn it over to the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate removals, he said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Justice Department on Tuesday released Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, the last act of a prosecutor whose historic criminal cases were thwarted by Trump’s November election victory.

The report is expected to detail Smith’s decision to bring a four-count indictment against Trump accusing the Republican president-elect of plotting to obstruct the collection and certification of votes following his 2020 defeat by Democratic President Joe Biden.

A second section of the report details Smith’s case accusing Trump of illegally retaining sensitive national security documents after leaving the White House in 2021. The Justice Department has committed not to make that portion public while legal proceedings continue against two Trump associates charged in the case.

Smith, who left the Justice Department last week, dropped both cases against Trump after he won last year’s election, citing a longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Neither reached a trial.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. Regularly assailing Smith as “deranged,” Trump depicted the cases as politically motivated attempts to damage his campaign and political movement.

Trump and his two former co-defendants in the classified documents case sought to block the release of the report, days before Trump is set to return to office on Jan. 20. Courts rebuffed their demands to prevent its publication altogether.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who presided over the documents case, has ordered the Justice Department for now to halt plans to allow certain senior members of Congress to privately review the documents section of the report.

It’s unclear how much new information the public portion of the report will contain.

Prosecutors gave a detailed view of their case against Trump in previous court filings. A congressional panel in 2022 published its own 700-page account of Trump’s actions following the 2020 election.

Both investigations concluded that Trump spread false claims of widespread voter fraud following the 2020 election, pressured state lawmakers not to certify the vote and ultimately sought to use fraudulent groups of electors pledged to vote for Trump, in states actually won by Biden, in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s win.

The effort culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol when a mob of Trump supporters stormed Congress in a failed attempt to stop lawmakers from certifying the vote.

Smith’s case faced legal hurdles even before Trump’s election win. It was paused for months while Trump pressed his claim that he could not be prosecuted for official actions taken as president.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority largely sided with him, granting former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington DC:

Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump for his alleged effort to overturn results of the 2020 election, has left the US Department of Justice, prosecutors said Saturday in a court filing.

“The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10,” officials said in the document submitted to US District Judge Aileen Cannon, urging her to not extend her order last week blocking the release of Smith’s final report.

The statement on Smith was a footnote in the filing to Cannon as she mulls whether to maintain a hold on the special counsel’s report on two cases: Trump’s role in the January 6, 2020 insurrection at the US Capitol aimed at halting certification of Joe Biden’s victory, and the case of Trump’s withholding of classified documents after he left the White House.

With the hold set to expire in the coming days and Cannon considering an extension, the protracted legal fight over the report on Trump-related cases is coming down to the week or so before he is inaugurated as America’s 47th president on January 20.

Trump suggested in a late night post on his Truth Social platform that Smith has been “fired” by the Department of Justice.

“He is a disgrace to himself, his family, and his Country. After spending over $100,000,000 on the Witch Hunt against TRUMP, he left town empty handed!” he wrote.

Smith had accused Trump of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the session of Congress called to certify Biden’s election win but which was violently attacked on January 6 by a mob of the Republican leader’s supporters.

Smith dropped the cases against Trump after he won November’s presidential election.

On January 7, the special counsel finalized his confidential report to US Attorney General Merrick Garland, and the Justice Department said this week that Garland plans to publicly release the findings.

Department officials have argued that Cannon does not have the power to block the attorney general from releasing Smith’s report

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Justice Department said Thursday that it has reached a $100 million settlement with the Singaporean owner and operator of a cargo ship that destroyed a Baltimore bridge.

The 1,000-foot (300-meter) M/V Dali collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in the early morning of March 26, killing six road workers and blocking the busy shipping channel.

Grace Ocean Private Ltd and Synergy Marine Private Ltd have agreed to pay $101.1 million to settle a civil suit aimed at recovering costs incurred in responding to the disaster and for removing tons of bridge debris from the channel leading to the port of Baltimore, the Justice Department said.

“Nearly seven months after one of the worst transportation disasters in recent memory, which claimed six lives and caused untold damage, we have reached an important milestone with today’s settlement,” Benjamin Mizer, a senior Justice Department official, said in a statement.

“This resolution ensures that the costs of the federal government’s cleanup efforts in the Fort McHenry Channel are borne by Grace Ocean and Synergy and not the American taxpayer,” Mizer said.

The Justice Department said the settlement does not include any damages for eventual rebuilding of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. That is the subject of a separate claim from the state of Maryland.

The families of the six road workers who lost their lives are also pursuing legal claims of their own.

The Fort McHenry channel leading to the port of Baltimore, a key hub for the auto industry, reopened to commercial navigation on June 10.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Justice Department on Monday proposed new rules to protect federal government data or Americans’ bulk personal data from getting into the hands of countries like China, Iran and Russia by placing new limits on certain business transactions.

The proposal, which was previewed in March, implements an executive order issued earlier this year by President Joe Biden which aims to keep foreign adversaries from using accessible American financial and genomic data and health data for cyber attacks, espionage and blackmail.

In addition to China, Russia and Iran, the rule would also apply to Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Washington has been trying to stem the flow of American personal data to China, part of a years-long struggle over trade and technology.

In 2018, a US panel that reviews foreign investments for potential national security threats rejected a plan by China’s Ant Financial to acquire U.S. money transfer company MoneyGram International, because of concerns over safety of data that can be used to identify US citizens.

The officials said transactions will be banned with data brokers who know the information will end up in “countries of concern”, as will the transfer of any data on US government personnel.

Monday’s proposal for the first time gave more specific details about the types and amounts of data that cannot be transferred, including human genomic data on over 100 Americans or personal health or financial data on over 10,000 people.

The proposal would also bar the transfer of precise geolocation data on over 1,000 US devices.

The rule would allow the Justice Department to enforce compliance both through criminal and civil penalties.

US officials told reporters on Monday that Chinese apps such as TikTok could run afoul of the proposal if they transferred sensitive data from US users to a Chinese parent company.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

File photo shows a U.S. Coast Guard boat approaches clean-up operations at the Francis Scott Key Bridge as the main shipping channel prepares to fully reopen, in Baltimore. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a response in a Maryland court demanding more than $100 million in damages from Grace Ocean Pvt Ltd and Synergy Marine Pvt Ltd, the owner and the manager of containership Dali that crashed into a bridge off Baltimore on March 26. This led to six deaths and two persons were injured, besides requiring a salvage operation and shutdown of the Baltimore port for many months.

The response filed was to a limited liability claim made by the owner and the manager soon after the accident.

The Justice Department has called the tragedy “entire avoidable” and put the responsibility for the accident on the owner and the manager, alleging improper maintenance, violation of international safety and other norms, as well as an improperly trained crew.

Dali’s crew was almost entirely Indian. Synergy Marine, registered in Singapore, has Indians in key leadership positions with an operational base in Chennai and Mumbai, besides employing thousands of Indian seafarers on ships it manages.

Any merchant ship has a propeller run by an engine that moves it forward and back. A rudder controlled by a steering gear turns the ship left and right. Dali also had a bow thruster that can move it sideways. With these, Dali’s movements can be controlled.

As the ship was manoeuvring out of the port into the Chesapeake Bay, there was a blackout onboard. The Justice Department response says the ship had a history of heavy vibrations that were not addressed. And vibrations likely led to some power supply cables coming loose, leading to the switching off of a transformer and, hence, a blackout.

As per global norms, the emergency generator should have started after the blackout and provided power within 45 seconds. But that did not happen. The standby transformer was switched on after a delay and power was restored.

The response notes that Dali’s running generators were being supplied fuel by a “flushing” pump against norms that mandate the use of two large dedicated pumps. This was done to cut costs, the response alleged.

The flushing pump was not switched on after the blackout. So, starved of fuel, the generators offloaded, leading to a second blackout.

Without power, the engine could not be operated to stop the ship. There was no steering either. But the ship was moving forward under its own momentum and veering dangerously to the right towards the bridge pier.

At this time, the pilots ordered that the left side anchor should be dropped against the rightward drift but the ship staff were unable to drop the anchor quickly, according to the response. The pilots were told the bow thruster could not be operated either.

San Francisco, United States:

The US Justice Department on Tuesday said Boeing can be prosecuted for two subsequent 737 Max crashes that killed 346 people approximately five years ago.

Boeing breached obligations under an agreement that had shielded it against legal proceedings for the accidents, department officials said in a letter to a federal court in Texas.

Boeing told AFP “we believe that we have honored the terms of that agreement” and said that it plans to defend itself.

US officials said in their letter that Boeing breached its obligations under a deferred prosecution agreement (DFA) by “failing to design, implement, and enforce a compliance and ethics program to prevent and detect violations of the US fraud laws throughout its operations.”

Such a breach would mean Boeing can be prosecuted for any violation of federal law related to the crashes, according to US justice officials.

The government is evaluating how to proceed in the matter and has directed Boeing to respond by June 13.

US officials also plan to confer with families of people who died in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes.

“This is a positive first step, and for the families, a long time coming,” said attorney Paul Cassell, who represents crash victim families.

Cassell called for further action from the Department of Justice and added he would seek details regarding a “satisfactory remedy” to Boeing’s wrongdoing.

In March of 2019, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashed southeast of Addis Ababa, killing the 157 people on board.

It was the second accident in five months for a 737 MAX aircraft, a product line meant to replace the 737 NG.

The first crash, involving a MAX 8 operated by Lion Air, occurred in October of the prior year in Indonesia’s Java Sea and left 189 people dead.

Both aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff, with investigations later pointing to trouble with the automated flight system.

The aircraft were temporarily grounded or banned from airspace around the world.

“We will engage with the Department with the utmost transparency, as we have throughout the entire term of the agreement,” Boeing said in a statement to AFP.

It said this also included “response to their questions following the Alaska Airlines 1282 accident.” 

The dramatic mid-flight blowout on January 5 of a fuselage panel on an Alaska Airlines plane precipitated the departures of a series of top Boeing officials — including CEO Dave Calhoun, who is set to step down at year’s end.

It also resulted in reduced production of the 737 MAX. 

Multiple inquiries, audits

The US Federal Aviation Administration was sharply criticized after the crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX planes in 2018 and 2019. 

But as Boeing faces multiple inquiries and audits in the United States and abroad, it has repeatedly assured critics that it is working “with full transparency and under the oversight” of FAA regulators.

The DPA required Boeing to pay $2.5 billion in fines and restitution in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution for charges it defrauded the government during the certification of the MAX.

A federal judge in Texas early last year rejected a challenge by relatives of Boeing 737 MAX crash victims to the aviation giant’s US criminal settlement, ruling against ordering changes to the controversial January 2021 DPA.

The families have argued that Boeing’s role in what they have called the “deadliest corporate crime” in US history merits criminal conviction of the company and top brass. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)