New Delhi, Aug 12:
A US federal judge has permanently dismissed the criminal securities-fraud case against Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar, closing nearly two years of prosecution without a trial.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York granted the Justice Department’s Rule 48(a) motion, dismissing Counts Two, Three and Four of the indictment — covering securities-fraud conspiracy, wire-fraud conspiracy and securities fraud — with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled.
The court reserved judgment on Count One (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations) and Count Five (obstruction of justice) as they relate to non-appearing defendants, pending further compliance by the government with Rule 48(a). “Truth has prevailed,” Gautam Adani said in response to the ruling, adding that he respected the judicial process and thanked those who had stood by the Group through the proceedings, while reaffirming its commitment to “nation-building” and “long-term value creation.”
The indictment, unsealed in November 2024, alleged Adani Group executives paid roughly USD 265 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure solar-power contracts projected to generate more than USD 2 billion in profits, while misleading investors who helped raise nearly USD 4 billion in US financing, and that other defendants destroyed evidence and lied to federal investigators.
The Adani Group has consistently denied the allegations, calling them baseless. US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis granted the Justice Department’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three and Four of the indictment against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and former Adani Green CEO Vneet Jaain.
The counts covered securities-fraud conspiracy, wire-fraud conspiracy and securities fraud. The court found that the DOJ had met the legal requirements for dismissal on one ground: its argument that alleged statements about Adani Green’s anti-bribery policies and corporate compliance could amount to “inactionable puffery” — broad statements that investors could not reasonably rely on — creating legal risks for the prosecution.