A United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has declined to immediately dismiss the criminal proceedings against Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and other co-accused, directing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide a detailed factual and legal basis for its request to terminate the prosecution.
The order comes after the DOJ moved to dismiss the criminal indictment that had been filed in November 2024, alleging that the accused participated in a scheme involving alleged bribes to Indian government officials to secure renewable energy contracts and subsequently misled American investors while raising funds in US markets. The Adani Group has consistently denied the allegations.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis observed that the government’s application did not furnish sufficient material to enable the Court to independently exercise its judicial discretion. The Court held that a mere conclusory request for dismissal could not automatically result in termination of criminal proceedings and sought a fuller explanation before passing any final order.
The Court has directed the Department of Justice to file its response by 13 July 2026, after which it will consider whether the indictment ought to be dismissed.
The criminal proceedings form one part of multiple legal actions instituted in the United States. Earlier this year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reached a civil settlement with Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani under which they agreed to pay a combined civil penalty of USD 18 million, without admitting or denying the allegations. Separately, Adani Enterprises also agreed to pay USD 275 million to the US Treasury Department in relation to a sanctions-related matter concerning the purchase of Iranian oil.
Earlier this week, counsel appearing for Gautam Adani urged the federal court to formally dismiss the criminal indictment, contending that the Department of Justice itself had decided not to pursue the prosecution. However, the District Court held that the ultimate decision rests with the judiciary and that the prosecution must adequately explain the legal and factual grounds for abandoning the case.