Adani case: NY judge's query procedural, unlikely to derail DoJ bid to drop charges, says US lawyer

A US federal judge's decision to seek a more detailed explanation from prosecutors before approving the dismissal of criminal charges against billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani is largely procedural and does not indicate that the case is likely to proceed, according to a senior US lawyer familiar with federal criminal practice.

Chris Man, a US attorney with expertise in federal criminal proceedings, said the court's order falls within the normal judicial process under Rule 48(a), which requires the Department of Justice (DoJ) to obtain court approval before dismissing an indictment. "The judge's order is procedural," Man said, adding that courts often seek additional clarification or briefing before ruling on motions to dismiss.

The development comes after Brooklyn-based US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis asked federal prosecutors to provide a fuller explanation for their request to dismiss the indictment against Adani and other defendants. The judge noted that the DoJ's May 18 submission, indicating that it would no longer pursue the case, did not sufficiently explain the reasons behind the decision.

The indictment had accused Adani of securities fraud and wire fraud in connection with an alleged bribery scheme. According to Man, the judge has given the Justice Department until July 13 to submit a detailed explanation. "In my opinion, the case is likely to be dismissed within weeks rather than months. The court may even decide the matter without holding a hearing," he said.

Limited Judicial Discretion

Legal experts maintain that federal judges have limited authority to compel prosecutors to continue pursuing a case once the executive branch has decided to abandon it. "There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the executive branch has determined should be abandoned," Man said.

The conduct of criminal prosecutions is constitutionally considered an executive function, and courts traditionally grant substantial deference to prosecutorial decisions regarding charges and dismissals.

Comparison With Eric Adams Case

Man cited the recent corruption case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams as an example. In that case, the Justice Department sought dismissal of the indictment, prompting the court to seek additional explanations and conduct hearings before eventually granting the government's request.

Legal observers say the Adams case demonstrates that while judges may closely examine the reasons for dismissal, their authority to override prosecutorial decisions remains extremely limited.

Adani's Legal Arguments

According to a letter submitted by Adani's legal team to the court on June 24, 2026, the company argued that the alleged conduct fell outside the jurisdiction of US law. The defence maintained that the transactions involved non-US issuers and lenders, while the offering documents were prepared and approved outside the United States. The bond offerings were also governed by English law.

The letter cited the US Supreme Court's ruling in *Morrison v. National Australia Bank* to argue that the case falls outside the scope of US securities law.

Adani's legal team also challenged the bribery allegations, claiming that the alleged payments coincided with legitimate commercial price reductions offered to Indian state power companies to encourage solar power agreements. The defence further argued that these were standard business concessions rather than illegal payments.

Extensive Review by DOJ

The Justice Department's decision reportedly followed an extensive review of materials submitted by Adani's legal team. According to the filing, nearly 500 pages of documents, legal arguments, expert testimony, and supporting materials were provided to the DoJ between February and April 2026.

These included a 118-page submission accompanied by expert opinions from a Harvard Law School securities law professor, a former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) commissioner, and other specialists.

No Alleged Investor Losses

The defence also pointed out that the indictment did not allege any investor losses linked to the four financial transactions under scrutiny. According to the submissions:

- The 2021 bond offering has matured with all interest payments
completed.
- The 2024 bonds have not missed any payments.
- The 2021 loan has been repaid in full.
- The 2023 loan remains in good standing and is not in default.

The court is now expected to review the Justice Department's detailed submission before taking a final decision on the motion to dismiss the indictment.