Adani Swears No US Deal Behind Bribery Case Dismissal; Judge Weighs 'Quid Pro Quo' Claims

Gautam Adani, the chairman of India's Adani Group, has formally denied under oath that any 'quid pro quo' or secret deal was behind the US Department of Justice decision to drop a high-profile criminal indictment against him and seven others. In a sworn affidavit submitted by the July 15 deadline, Adani stated he was unaware of any promises or agreements tied to the dismissal, explicitly denying that his group's proposed $10 billion investment in the United States influenced the DOJ move. This affidavit was a direct response to US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who is scrutinizing the DOJ unusual request to dismiss the charges. The saga began when the DOJ, under the Biden administration in 2024, unsealed an indictment accusing Adani of a scheme to pay $250 million in bribes to Indian officials for power contracts and misleading US investors. However, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter later argued that the case was 'legally indefensible' due to challenges like the alleged conduct primarily occurring in India, a lack of identified investor losses, and existing Indian investigations. Judge Garaufis, however, found McCotter's explanation raised the 'specter of a possible agreement' not disclosed to the court, especially given reports linking the dismissal to Adani Group US investment plans. The indictment had initially caused a sharp sell-off in Adani Group stocks, wiping out billions in market capitalization. With Adani's sworn denial now before the court, Judge Garaufis is tasked with determining if the Justice Department's reasons for seeking dismissal with prejudice are genuine and if any undisclosed arrangements influenced the decision. The judge's ruling, which is eagerly awaited, will ultimately decide the fate of these long-standing criminal proceedings and could set a precedent for similar international cases involving high-profile business figures. Observers will be watching for how this judicial oversight impacts the perceived independence of US legal actions.