The dismissal ends the criminal case against Adani, but Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis’ unusually detailed ruling leaves fresh questions about political appointees, prosecutor discretion and judicial oversight.
Federal Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis dismissed the criminal fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani in the Eastern District of New York after the U.S. Department of Justice requested that the case be dropped. But Garaufis sharply criticized the Justice Department over the dismissal, describing irregularities in how a senior official handled the decision.
The result gives Adani a major legal victory, yet the 47-page ruling also turns the spotlight on the DOJ’s decision-making. Garaufis granted dismissal for Adani and several co-defendants while refusing to dismiss two counts against five other defendants, saying prosecutors had not provided an adequate reason.
A dismissal with a pointed rebuke
The Justice Department moved in May to dismiss the case against Adani, which involved allegations of foreign bribery and related conduct. The prosecution had been brought near the end of former President Joe Biden’s administration and remained pending after President Donald Trump took office.
Garaufis, a U.S. District Judge in Brooklyn, ultimately accepted the government’s request as it applied to Adani. In doing so, he said there was a conceivable legal concern that anti-bribery language used in financial documents could be too generic or vague for the prosecution.
That finding mattered. A judge’s approval of a government request to end a criminal case means the charges against Adani have been dismissed, not merely paused or deferred.
Still, the judge made clear that approval did not equal endorsement of every explanation the DOJ had offered. His opinion questioned both the process and the level of detail supplied to the court.
Why five defendants remain exposed
The ruling did not sweep away the entire indictment. Garaufis declined to dismiss two counts against five other co-defendants, finding that the Justice Department had failed to give sufficient grounds for dropping them.
That split decision is an important distinction. Adani and several co-defendants no longer face the dismissed criminal fraud charges, while the unresolved counts mean the broader legal matter is not over for everyone named in the case.
The exact path ahead for those remaining defendants was not immediately clear from the ruling. The Justice Department could provide further justification, pursue other procedural options or take a different position on the counts the judge left intact.
The decision also illustrates the limited but real role judges can play when prosecutors seek to abandon an indictment after a grand jury has returned it.
Judge questions DOJ’s rationale
Garaufis focused much of his criticism on Trent McCotter, the principal associate deputy attorney general, who was described in the ruling as bearing sole responsibility for the effort to dismiss the case.
According to the judge, McCotter appeared to have set aside the views of federal officials involved in investigating and bringing the case. Garaufis wrote that the decision appeared to have been reached largely with defense counsel and seemingly without input from FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission investigators, or from the DOJ, SEC and U.S. Attorney’s Office lawyers who handled the prosecution.
The judge called those circumstances “highly unusual,” according to CBS News. He also said the “irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning.”
McCotter told the court that he made the decision after numerous meetings with defense lawyers and a review of hundreds of pages of material, according to a letter cited by CBS News. A Justice Department spokesperson declined additional comment beyond that letter.
The rule at the center
The dispute centered on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which governs the government’s effort to dismiss charges. The rule requires the government to obtain the court’s leave, a safeguard that gives judges a narrow ability to examine a proposed dismissal.
Garaufis said the government must set out both its reasons and the factual basis for seeking dismissal. He rejected the idea that the court should simply step aside whenever prosecutors invoke discretion.
His ruling said Rule 48(a) was designed to preserve a “limited, but key,” judicial role once an indictment has been returned by a grand jury. That does not give judges broad power to run prosecutions, but it does require the government to explain itself when it asks to end one.
Garaufis said he was not persuaded by unsworn assertions involving possible diplomatic strain, resource concerns and the view that India could better handle its own internal systems. He also objected to a contention that the Biden-era case had been brought as a “name-and-shame” exercise.
Defense meetings drew scrutiny
The judge’s concerns were heightened by the circumstances surrounding the DOJ’s decision. CBS News reported that Adani hired Bob Giuffra and Jamie McDonald of Sullivan & Cromwell, and that government officials met with McDonald, Giuffra and another firm lawyer, Andrew DeFilippis.
At one meeting, Giuffra reportedly challenged evidence related to the alleged bribery scheme. CBS News also reported that presentation materials highlighted Adani’s companies and argued that the Trump administration would not have brought the case.
Sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that Giuffra said Adani would be willing to invest $10 billion in the U.S. economy if charges were dropped. Adani later told the court that there had been no quid pro quo arrangement, after Garaufis sought answers on that issue.
The judge did not find such an arrangement existed. His criticism instead focused on the government’s stated rationale, the process used to reach its decision and whether the court had been given enough information to assess the dismissal request.
What the ruling means for Adani
Adani, one of India’s wealthiest business leaders, leads the Adani Group, a conglomerate with interests including airports, seaports and power plants. He is also widely viewed as an ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
After the ruling, Adani welcomed the decision in a social media post, saying he had faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law. His legal team was contacted for comment, according to CBS News.
For Adani, the immediate consequence is straightforward: the criminal fraud charges addressed by the court’s dismissal are gone. For the Justice Department, the ruling is more complicated. A federal judge approved its central request but delivered a public account of why the process troubled him.
The decision leaves two competing takeaways. Prosecutors retain substantial authority to decide whether a case should continue, particularly when they identify litigation risks. Yet Garaufis’ opinion argues that authority is not a blank check once charges have been filed—and that courts may demand a genuine explanation before an indictment is discarded.
Leave a Reply