Published Jul 11, 2026 | 1:50 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 11, 2026 | 1:50 PM
Gautam Adani
Synopsis: “In other words, Mr. McCotter’s response to the court’s June 26, 2026 Memorandum & Order raises, for the first time, the specter of a possible agreement (involving one or multiple Defendants) in connection with the dismissal of the Indictment that has neither been memorialized nor previously brought to the attention of this court,” the 8 July order stated.
A United States of America court on 8 July asked Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani to answer questions about whether there was any sort of quid pro quo made in connection with the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss criminal foreign bribery and securities fraud charges against him.
According to CBS News report, the U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis told Adani he has until July 15 to answer whether he is aware of “anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to, or accepted, by anyone in connection with the dismissal of the indictment” and whether he knows of any “agreement exchanging anything for the dismissal of the Indictment.”
The Bar and Bench reported, the order came after Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter responded to the Court’s direction to explain why the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) wanted all charges against Adani dismissed with prejudice.
McCotter, who said he was the “final and sole decision maker” behind the request, rejected reports suggesting that the decision was linked to a promise by the Adani to invest in the United States.
“In other words, Mr. McCotter’s response to the court’s June 26, 2026 Memorandum & Order raises, for the first time, the specter of a possible agreement (involving one or multiple Defendants) in connection with the dismissal of the Indictment that has neither been memorialized nor previously brought to the attention of this court,” the 8 July order stated.
The Bar and Bench further reported that, in his July 8 order, judge Garaufis said that while considering a motion under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court must satisfy itself that the reasons advanced by the government are substantial and represent the real grounds for seeking dismissal.
Since the Court did not find that any undisclosed agreement existed, it has now sought Adani’s affidavit to satisfy itself on this aspect before deciding the government’s application to dismiss the indictment.
“The Government’s terse, bland and conclusory statement affords the court neither a sufficient basis to reach any conclusion, nor the opportunity to conduct any analysis of the Government’s request for dismissal,” Judge Garaufis wrote in an earlier order released on 26 June.
The US judge asserted that the DOJ had “failed to meet its obligation to supply adequate reasoning and sufficient facts” to justify dismissing the indictment. Without that information, he wrote, the court could not properly exercise its own discretion and instead “risks abusing its discretion in deciding the motion”.
He directed prosecutors to provide, by July 13, “each reason” for seeking dismissal of the indictment and “sufficient factual support for each basis” before the court considers whether to grant the request.
The criminal case is one of two parallel proceedings launched by US authorities in November 2024. While the DOJ charged Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and others with offences including securities fraud conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act over an alleged $250 million bribery scheme involving Indian state electricity contracts, the Securities and Exchange Commission separately sued Gautam and Sagar Adani for allegedly misleading investors during a 2021 bond offering.
Four days before the Justice Department moved to dismiss the criminal indictment, the SEC announced it had reached a proposed settlement under which Gautam Adani agreed to pay a $6 million civil penalty and Sagar Adani $12 million, without admitting or denying the regulator’s allegations. The proposed settlement would also permanently bar them from future violations of specified US securities laws, but still requires Judge Garaufis’s approval.
