Billionaire Gautam Adani is expected to file a sworn affidavit in a New York federal court this week, declaring whether he knows of any promise, agreement, exchange or benefit connected to the US government’s request to abandon its criminal case against him.
US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis has directed the Adani Group chairman to submit the declaration by July 15 before the court decides whether to dismiss the indictment permanently. The unusual requirement places Adani personally on record over the circumstances surrounding the Justice Department’s change of position.
The judge wants Adani to state whether he is aware of any offer, commitment or advantage tied to the proposed dismissal. The declaration must also address whether anything was given or promised in return for prosecutors seeking to withdraw the charges.
The Adani Group has declined to comment, citing the continuing judicial proceedings.
Federal prosecutors asked the Eastern District of New York court in May to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice, meaning they could not be brought again. They said the Justice Department had reviewed the case and decided that further use of prosecutorial resources was not justified.
Garaufis did not immediately approve the request. He sought a fuller explanation after finding that the government’s initial submission provided insufficient information for the court to exercise its independent responsibilities.
The Justice Department subsequently argued that the prosecution had weak links to the United States and limited prospects of reaching trial. It said the alleged conduct occurred largely outside US territory, involved overseas defendants and institutions, and did not present the kind of national security or organised crime concerns that would warrant continued expenditure of resources.
The department also questioned the legal basis for applying US securities and fraud laws to the alleged transactions. Prosecutors maintained that the case did not involve an identifiable financial loss to a US investor and was unlikely to proceed while the defendants remained outside the country.
Adani and seven other defendants were indicted in 2024 over an alleged scheme involving more than $250 million in payments promised to government officials to secure solar power supply contracts. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants concealed the purported arrangements while raising billions of dollars from international lenders and investors.
The indictment accused Adani and associates of securities fraud, wire fraud and related conspiracy offences. Certain other defendants were charged with conspiring to violate anti-bribery laws and obstructing investigations. Adani Group rejected the allegations as baseless and said it would pursue all legal remedies.
The case centred on power purchase arrangements expected to generate substantial revenue for Adani Green Energy and another renewable energy company. Prosecutors alleged that misleading statements were made to investors regarding the companies’ anti-corruption controls and compliance practices.
Neither Adani nor the other overseas defendants appeared before the Brooklyn court. Their absence created practical barriers to prosecution, including questions over extradition, service of legal documents and the likelihood of securing a trial.
Adani’s lawyers also challenged the jurisdictional foundation of the case. They argued that the alleged activity was predominantly connected to India and that the indictment attempted to extend US criminal law beyond its proper territorial reach.
The judge’s demand for sworn disclosures reflects concerns over whether the dismissal resulted solely from an independent legal assessment. Reports about discussions involving prospective Adani Group investments in the United States have intensified scrutiny of the decision.
Adani has previously outlined plans for investment of up to $10 billion in US energy security and infrastructure projects, potentially supporting as many as 15,000 jobs. His legal representatives have maintained that investment proposals did not form part of any bargain over the criminal proceedings.
The Justice Department has told the court that its decision was based on legal weaknesses, enforcement priorities and the practical difficulties of continuing the prosecution. It denied that the dismissal request represented an exchange for commercial commitments.
The court retains authority under federal criminal procedure to approve or reject the government’s motion, although judges generally give prosecutors considerable discretion when they decide not to pursue charges. Judicial review is intended to guard against dismissals that could undermine the public interest or involve improper arrangements.
Garaufis has also ordered the Justice Department to provide its expanded justification by July 13. The affidavit from Adani is due two days later, after which the judge may rule on whether the indictment should be erased permanently.
