By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 8/11/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Federal Justice / Government Accountability / Public Corruption
NEW YORK CITY, NY –
A federal judge in Brooklyn has approved the Justice Department’s request to end major fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and two co-defendants, but the ruling is anything but a clean bill of health for the government’s decision.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis granted dismissal with prejudice of Counts Two, Three and Four against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain on August 10. That means those charges cannot be brought again. The judge did not dismiss two other counts against five defendants who have not appeared in the case, instead ordering the Justice Department to provide better-supported reasons by August 31.
The 47-page order exposes a deeper accountability question: how did a major federal bribery and securities case, built by career investigators and prosecutors, come to be abandoned largely through the judgment of one senior Justice Department official working with defense counsel?
An Unusual Path to Dismissal
The indictment, filed in the Eastern District of New York in 2024, alleged a scheme involving roughly $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials, false statements to U.S. investors and efforts to obstruct federal investigations. Those claims remain allegations. Gautam Adani and the Adani Group have consistently denied wrongdoing.
The Justice Department moved in May to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. The one-paragraph filing said the department had decided not to devote further resources to the case. It was signed by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr., not by prosecutors who had investigated or brought the charges.
Two career Justice Department lawyers involved in the prosecution withdrew from the matter two days later, according to the court’s order.
Garaufis said the record showed McCotter was the final and sole decision-maker. The judge found it highly unusual that the dismissal decision appeared to have been reached largely in collaboration with defense lawyers, without apparent input from the FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission agents who investigated the allegations or the attorneys who filed the case.
The court also criticized McCotter’s resistance to Rule 48(a), which requires prosecutors to obtain a judge’s permission before dismissing federal criminal charges. Garaufis said the official’s refusal to meet the rule’s procedural requirements, even after being directed to do so, delayed review and showed a lack of respect for the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch.
The Investment Question
The court examined whether Gautam Adani’s previously announced pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States influenced the dismissal request.
McCotter denied that it did. Adani acknowledged in a sworn declaration that his lawyers told Justice Department officials the investment commitment might be part of a resolution. His attorney, Robert Giuffra, separately said the Adani Group was willing to follow through on the pledge as part of resolving the federal matters.
Garaufis ultimately accepted that the investment promise did not drive McCotter’s decision. The judge took no position on the propriety of the defense’s monetary offers and said the public must decide what effect such offers have on equal justice and the rule of law.
That finding matters. The ruling does not establish a quid pro quo. It does, however, document the kind of private access and unconventional decision-making that can erode confidence in whether wealthy, well-connected defendants face the same justice system as everyone else.
Why Some Charges Were Dismissed
Garaufis stressed that courts have a limited role when prosecutors seek dismissal. A judge cannot simply replace the executive branch’s charging judgment with the court’s preferred outcome.
For the fraud and securities counts involving the three appearing defendants, the court found a substantial legal reason to approve dismissal. The alleged anti-bribery and compliance statements at the center of those counts could be treated as vague corporate puffery rather than actionable misrepresentations. That legal vulnerability was enough under Rule 48(a), especially because the defendants consented to ending the case.
Garaufis made clear that approval was not an endorsement of the Justice Department’s decision and was not a ruling on guilt, innocence or the overall merits of the prosecution.
The Unfinished Case
The result is narrower than a total dismissal. Garaufis reserved judgment on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act count and an obstruction count against Ranjit Gupta, Cyril Cabanes, Saurabh Agarwal, Deepak Malhotra and Rupesh Agarwal.
The judge found McCotter’s explanation for abandoning the bribery count contradicted by the indictment’s own allegations. The court also said the request to drop the obstruction count failed to confront allegations that evidence was destroyed or concealed and that false statements were made to federal officials.
The Justice Department now must identify each reason for dismissing those two counts and provide adequate factual support by August 31. Lawyers for the five nonappearing defendants must also place their clients’ consent on the record.
What Happens Next
The immediate outcome is a major victory for Gautam Adani and the two other appearing defendants. Three counts are gone permanently.
But the order leaves the Justice Department with hard questions about transparency, internal process and equal treatment. A dismissal can be legally permissible while the road to that dismissal remains deeply troubling.
The court did not decide whether political influence or favoritism shaped the case. It did something narrower and still important: it forced the government to explain itself, recorded the irregularities and refused to pretend that prosecutorial discretion is the same thing as public accountability.
Leave a Reply