Gautam Adani Denies Quid Pro Quo In US DOJ's Decision To Drop $250 Million Bribery Case

Industrialist Gautam Adani has filed an affidavit before a US federal court stating he has no knowledge of any quid pro quo behind the Department of Justice's decision to seek dismissal of the criminal indictment against him and seven others in the alleged $250 million bribery case, and denied that his pledged $10 billion US investment played any role in the decision.

Adani Says He Is Unaware Of Any Agreement Behind Dismissal

In the affidavit filed on July 15 before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Adani stated that he has no knowledge of anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to or accepted by anyone in connection with the DOJ's proposal to withdraw the indictment against him. He further stated he is unaware of any agreement exchanging anything for the dismissal.

The affidavit was filed in response to an order dated July 8 by Senior Judge Nicholas G Garaufis, directing Adani to disclose whether anything had been promised or exchanged for the government's decision to seek dismissal of the case. The Court had specifically asked Adani whether he was aware of anything promised, offered, sought, received, agreed to or accepted by anyone in connection with the dismissal, and whether he was aware of any agreement exchanging anything for it.

Affidavit Addresses 2024 Investment Pledge On Social Media

A significant portion of the affidavit addresses Adani's November 2024 social media post pledging a $10 billion investment in US energy, security and infrastructure projects, which the Court's July 8 order had flagged in light of press reports suggesting a possible link to the dismissal decision. Adani clarified that when he made the post, the indictment and the related SEC complaint had not yet been unsealed and he was unaware of their existence at the time.

The affidavit stated that earlier this year, Adani's counsel Sullivan & Cromwell LLP held settlement discussions with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission, during which counsel suggested the $10 billion investment pledge could potentially form part of a resolution if the agencies wanted. However, the DOJ later informed his counsel that it would not consider the potential investment in deciding whether to seek dismissal. Adani added that, to his knowledge, the Adani Group's interest in investing in the United States had no role in the DOJ's decision.

DOJ Official's Response Prompted Court's Query

The affidavit followed a response from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter, who told the Court he was the "final and sole decision maker" behind the request to drop the charges, and rejected reports linking the decision to any investment promise by Adani. The Court, however, observed that McCotter's response had raised, for the first time, the possibility of an undisclosed arrangement involving one or more defendants that had not previously been brought to its attention.

Background: Allegations Of Bribes To Secure Solar Power Contracts

The original indictment had alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta and others devised a plan to bribe Indian state government officials, with bribes worth approximately ₹2,029 crore allegedly promised to officials of state electricity distribution companies, including ₹1,750 crore allegedly allocated to Andhra Pradesh officials to secure purchase of 7 gigawatts of solar power.

The DOJ later moved to drop the indictment against all eight accused, but Judge Garaufis declined to immediately allow the request on June 25 and instead sought reasons for the decision. In a July 4 response, the DOJ described the prosecution as a "name and shame" indictment unsealed in the final days of the Biden administration without a realistic prospect of trial, and argued the case was overwhelmingly foreign in character since it concerned Indian nationals allegedly bribing other Indian nationals over an Indian electricity contract.

In his July 8 order, Judge Garaufis noted that under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court must satisfy itself that the government's stated reasons for seeking dismissal are substantial and genuine, which led to the direction for Adani's affidavit.

Case: USA v. Gautam Adani & Ors.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Senior Judge Nicholas G Garaufis
Affidavit Filed: July 15, 2026
Counsel for Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain: Robert J Giuffra Jr. and James McDonald (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP); Timothy Sini (Nixon Peabody); Andrey Spektor (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Counsel for Ranjit Gupta: Paul Schoeman (HSF Kramer, New York)
Counsel for Cyril Cabanes: Stephen Best (Brown Rudnick, Washington DC)
Counsel for Saurabh Agarwal: Winston Paes (Debevoise & Plimpton, New York)
Counsel for Deepak Malhotra: Aditya Singh (Singapore) and Michael Kendall (Boston), White & Case
Counsel for Rupesh Agarwal: Iris Bennett and Patrick Linehan (Steptoe, Washington DC)
For the US Government: Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R Trent McCotter