New Delhi: US legal experts have said it would be highly unusual for a federal court to turn down the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to dismiss the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, after prosecutors laid out detailed legal and policy grounds for seeking to drop the indictment, reported PTI.
Follow Energy Watch on X
Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Justice Department to secure the court's approval before dismissing an indictment. Judges may ask for further information or hold hearings before deciding, but legal experts said there is little modern precedent for a court forcing prosecutors to keep pursuing a case the executive branch has chosen to abandon.
"It would be very unusual if the courts were to do anything more than accept the department's reasoning and dismiss the case," Adam Goldberg, Corporate Investigations Partner at Pillsbury, told PTI Videos. "The Department of Justice has provided tremendous amounts of detail not just with respect to a host of reasons why it does not want to prosecute, but reasonable and supported explanations for why it doesn't want to move forward."
The US Justice Department, in a 10-page written submission, told the New York court that criminal charges against Adani and others should be dismissed because the conduct occurred abroad and involved foreigners, the case is difficult to prove, and it is inconsistent with US priorities.
The submission was made in response to a June 26 order from US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who had directed the government to explain its reasoning for seeking to dismiss the charges.
Goldberg said, "In that case, it would be incredibly unusual for the court to do anything other than dismiss. The court might try to extend it further, but it really doesn't have the authority to force the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the department does not want to prosecute. So I would expect the court to approve this dismissal and the case would be dismissed."
The DOJ had indicted Adani and others in 2024, under the previous Biden administration, alleging involvement in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to the tune of USD 250 million and to mislead investors in order to secure billions more in investment from other entities. During the period of the alleged scheme, Adani Green Energy Ltd raised at least USD 175 million from US investors.
In its sharply worded 10-page filing, the DOJ forcefully defended its decision to abandon the criminal case against Adani and seven others, telling the federal judge that the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive, and inconsistent with the Trump administration's enforcement priorities.
The case "should have been dropped a year ago - or never brought in the first place," the filing said, adding that the court had only a limited role in reviewing the DOJ's decision to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
The department cited six overarching reasons for dropping all charges: the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India; Indian authorities had investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct; investors suffered no financial losses; key evidence and witnesses were located abroad; the defendants were unlikely to ever appear before a US court; and the prosecution faced significant evidentiary hurdles.
"This is a foreign case," the filing said.
Chris Man, a senior US lawyer familiar with federal criminal practice, said it is not unusual for a judge to seek additional briefing before ruling on a Rule 48(a) motion. "That, by itself, is not unusual," Man said. "Judges have little discretion. There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the executive branch has determined should be abandoned."
He said criminal prosecutions are constitutionally an executive function, and courts have historically given substantial deference to prosecutorial decisions. Seeking additional information, he said, allows a court to satisfy itself that the government's request is being made in good faith and is consistent with Rule 48(a).
Man pointed to the recent corruption case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in which the Justice Department sought dismissal of the indictment. The judge in that case sought additional explanations and held hearings before ultimately granting the government's request, but did not require prosecutors to continue with the case.
Separately, Seth Levine, a partner at Levine Lee LLP, said the Justice Department had laid out a detailed rationale for seeking dismissal. "The Department is taking an important step of dismissing an indictment, which no administration does lightly," Levine said. "The Department has provided a fairly detailed explanation of multiple reasons why they believe it is in the public interest to dismiss this indictment, including legal, policy and procedural reasons."
Follow Energy Watch on LinkedIN
Levine added that while there is debate in the United States over the role of courts in reviewing such requests, the Justice Department has also argued that judicial discretion under Rule 48(a) is limited.
