‘Adani case should never have been brought’, says US judge

To clarify a key detail in the breaking news: the phrase “should never have been brought” was actually stated by the US Department of Justice (DoJ), rather than the presiding federal judge.

In a sharply worded 10-page filing submitted to the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the DoJ strongly defended its decision to permanently abandon the criminal case against billionaire Gautam Adani and seven co-defendants. The filing stated that the case “should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place.”

The DoJ’s submission was a direct response to US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who had actively blocked an immediate dismissal by calling the government’s initial motion “terse, bland, and conclusory” and demanding a full, detailed justification before granting a dismissal.

The DoJ’s Core Arguments for Dismissal

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter outlined six primary pillars explaining why the prosecution, originally initiated in late 2024 under the Biden administration for alleged $250 million bribery and securities fraud schemes, is legally and logistically non-viable:

• “Foreign Case” Overreach: The DoJ criticized the notion of the US acting as “world police,” noting that the matter involved Indian nationals working for Indian companies allegedly paying the Indian government via complex Indian rebate programs to secure Indian power contracts.
• No Investor Losses: The filing noted that sophisticated institutional investors suffered zero financial damage, as two sets of the notes were fully paid back while the remaining bonds continue to be serviced normally.
• Legal Flaws and “Puffery”: The DoJ argued that the securities fraud charges lacked structural merit. They noted that the statements cited in the initial indictment amounted to corporate “platitudes” and “puffery” that institutional investors wouldn’t rely on criminally, concluding the matter was at most a civil issue.
• The “Name and Shame” Assessment: The current DoJ leadership sharply criticized the timing of the original 2024 indictment, stating it was unsealed in the final days of the prior administration as a “name and shame” exercise with no realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring.
• Shifting Policy Priorities: Under current enforcement guidelines (the June 2025 Blanche Memorandum), Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prosecutions must focus strictly on cases impacting US national security, transnational criminal rings, or American corporate health—none of which apply here.

The Judicial Standstill

While the executive branch maintains the clear prerogative to drop criminal charges, the case officially remains in limbo until Judge Garaufis formally signs off on the dismissal with prejudice.

The DoJ has pushed the court to finalize the drop immediately, stating that forcing prosecutors to publicly over-justify their internal logic infringes on constitutional mandates and leaves the defendants unfairly “held in limbo.” The department also explicitly rejected media reports suggesting the legal U-turn was tied to promises of Adani Group investments in the United States, calling those claims entirely false.