BROOKLYN — Adani, an Indian businessman and founder of the Adani Group, was indicted in 2024 by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn on charges that he played a role in a fraud and bribery scheme. Prosecutors accused him of defrauding U.S. investors and paying off Indian government officials to win a bid to develop India’s largest solar power plant, a project whose contracts were projected to generate $2 billion in profits over 20 years. Adani was never arrested in connection with the charges and was not brought to the U.S. to face trial. He has called the accusations baseless.

The Justice Department sought to drop the case in May, stating it did not wish to devote further resources to the matter. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis requested information last week regarding the dismissal and is now weighing whether to sign off on the request. The court papers seeking dismissal were signed by Trent McCotter, the principal associate attorney general, and Joseph Nocella, the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, but did not include signatures from line prosecutors assigned to the case—signatures that would be customary.

In his sworn statement, Adani directly addressed speculation about potential political or financial incentives behind the dismissal. "To my knowledge, the Adani Group’s interest in investing in the United States had no role in the DOJ’s decision to seek the dismissal of the indictment," Adani said. He added, "I am not aware of any agreement involving any person or entity exchanging anything for the dismissal of the indictment."

Adani’s attorney, Robert J. Giuffra Jr., also filed a declaration on Wednesday elaborating on interactions with the Justice Department. Giuffra stated that the decision by prosecutors came after months of extensive communications and meetings, which included legal and factual analyses and written submissions from experts. He cited an email from prosecutors confirming the Justice Department’s refusal to consider the investment offer as part of any resolution in the case.

Giuffra clarified the nature of the Adani Group’s proposed investment, saying, "We stated that as part of any resolution of these matters on the merits, the Adani Group would be amenable to following through on a public statement by Gautam Adani regarding the Group’s willingness to invest $10 billion in the United States as a means of promoting the U.S.-India trade relationship." However, he emphasized that the Justice Department declined to consider Adani’s willingness to invest as part of any resolution in the case.

Trent McCotter, whose signature appears on the dismissal motion, provided further assurance about the independence of the decision. "I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments, regardless of whether the civil case (or any other matter) was settled or otherwise resolved," McCotter said. His statement was made in a separate filing and is distinct from the explanations offered this week by Adani and his legal team.

The unusual procedural aspects of the dismissal have drawn attention beyond the courtroom. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche seeking clarification on the department’s rationale and oversight. Their inquiry adds to growing scrutiny of the process, particularly given the absence of line prosecutors’ signatures on the dismissal documents.

The dismissal of a high-profile criminal case against a foreign billionaire with global business interests raises questions about prosecutorial independence and the intersection of international investment and U.S. legal proceedings. The Adani Group, founded by Gautam Adani in 1988 and headquartered in Ahmedabad, has expanded into sectors including energy, infrastructure, and defense, making its proposed $10 billion U.S. investment a matter of geopolitical and economic significance. The fact that the Justice Department declined to pursue the case after a year-long indictment—while explicitly rejecting any linkage to investment promises—underscores the complexity of transnational legal accountability.

With Judge Garaufis still reviewing the request, the final decision on whether the indictment will be formally dismissed remains pending. The court’s ruling will determine whether the case concludes without trial or whether further legal action is possible, setting a precedent for how similar matters involving foreign nationals and major economic actors may be handled in the future.