DoJ says Biden-era ‘Name and Shame’ indictment against Gautam Adani was a case it was likely to lose

New Delhi, July 5 (IANS) The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has done far more than seek dismissal of its criminal case against the Chairman of the Adani Group.

In an unprecedented filing, it questions the legal and jurisdictional basis of the prosecution, challenges the timing of the indictment during the closing days of the Biden era and explains why the Department now believes the case should never have been brought in the first place.

For Asia’s richest man, the filing marks a dramatic legal turnaround after nearly two years of intense international scrutiny, during which the indictment shaped investor sentiment, erased billions in market value and affected millions of retail shareholders.

In an unusually candid reassessment of one of its own highest-profile corporate prosecutions, the DoJ questions the legal foundation, jurisdiction and evidence underpinning the case, while also criticising the public unsealing of the indictment in the closing days of the previous US administration as an apparent “name and shame” exercise carried out “without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring”.

The most consequential part of the US Department of Justice’s (DoJ) July 4 filing is not its request to dismiss the criminal case against Gautam Adani, the Chairman of the Adani Group. It is the Department’s detailed explanation of why it now believes the prosecution was fundamentally flawed.

Its language is unusually direct. The securities charges, the DoJ says, “should never have been brought”. Seeking dismissal “was not a close call”, it adds, citing multiple legal, evidentiary and policy considerations that, in its assessment, independently justified ending the prosecution. Coming from the very institution that authorised the case, the filing amounts to a rare public reassessment of one of its own flagship corporate prosecutions.

The Department also rejects suggestions that its decision was influenced by prospective investments in the United States. It says the decision followed an extensive review of submissions from both prosecutors and defence counsel and had already been reached before any discussion of future investments. It also cautions against relying on anonymous media reports to explain its reasoning.

At the heart of the DoJ’s reassessment is its conclusion that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India. According to the filing, the case involved Indian nationals, Indian government officials, Indian contracts and electricity supplied within India. It also notes that Indian authorities investigated many of the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, concluding that the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the matter had already examined the issues.

The filing draws a clear distinction between legal allegations and market consequences. According to the DoJ, “not a single penny has ever been lost on the securities at issue”, with the notes either repaid in full or continuing to perform. The indictment nevertheless had consequences far beyond the courtroom.

The Department is equally candid about the prosecution’s prospects. It says it should be “credited for ending these criminal securities charges before having to endure a likely loss on the merits”, citing what it describes as “extraordinary proof problems”. Few prosecutors publicly acknowledge that one of their own flagship corporate prosecutions was likely to fail. The filing goes further still, referring elsewhere to the prosecution’s “numerous catastrophic flaws”, an exceptionally blunt characterisation of a case brought by the government itself.

The court has yet to rule on the dismissal motion, and the filing reflects the DoJ’s position rather than judicial findings. Even so, it represents an uncommon public reassessment by the very institution that initiated one of the world’s most closely watched corporate prosecutions.

For nearly two years, the indictment shaped global headlines, influenced investor confidence and became a focal point of political debate because it reflected the official position of the U.S. government. It also generated extensive international media coverage that intensified scrutiny of the Adani Group, some of which has now been called out by DoJ.

The July 4 filing places a markedly different account on the public record. Rather than defending the indictment, the Department has explained, in unusual detail, why it no longer believes the prosecution could be sustained. Whatever the court ultimately decides, that reassessment is likely to shape understanding of the case as much as the indictment itself.

–IANS

pk