The United States Department of Justice had filed an indictment alleging that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain, Ranjit Gupta and others participated in a scheme to bribe officials of Indian state electricity distribution companies to facilitate a solar power project. The indictment claimed that bribes amounting to approximately ₹2,029 crore (around $265 million) were promised, with ₹1,750 crore allegedly earmarked for officials in Andhra Pradesh to secure the purchase of seven gigawatts of solar power. The case was subsequently accompanied by a parallel complaint from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In July 2026 the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the indictment, filing a motion seeking the court’s approval to withdraw the charges. The motion was signed by United States Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. However, the government’s subsequent letter dated July 4, authored by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, asserted that McCotter was the “final and sole decision maker” on the dismissal.
Court’s Observation of Contradictions
Upon reviewing the filings, Judge Nicholas G Garaufis noted apparent inconsistencies between the statements made by Nocella and the claim attributed to McCotter. The judge pointed to an email dated May 11, 2026, sent by Nocella to counsel for the Adani group. In that email Nocella stated that the portion of a joint defense offer proposing a $10 billion investment in the United States as part of a possible resolution was “categorically rejected” by his office, while adding that other grounds for resolving the criminal charges were being explored.
The judge observed that the May 11 email indicated Nocella’s involvement in discussions about potential grounds for dismissal as recently as one week before the Department of Justice filed its dismissal motion. This appeared to contradict the assertion that McCotter alone had made the final decision. The court remarked that the representations in Nocella’s email and the declarations submitted by the defence “appear to directly contradict” the claim of sole decision‑making authority.
Judicial Direction for a Sworn Statement
In light of the contradictions, Judge Garaufis directed Joseph Nocella Jr to submit a sworn statement clarifying his precise role in the decision‑making process. The statement must address whether Nocella agrees with every ground for dismissal set out in McCotter’s July 4 letter, disclose whether any additional grounds for dismissal exist, and provide sufficient factual support for any such grounds. The sworn statement is required to be filed by July 17, 2026.
The judge also criticised both parties for presenting information in a piecemeal fashion, noting that each successive disclosure had generated further questions about the propriety and transparency of the dismissal process.
Adani’s Affidavit in Response to the Court’s Order
Prior to the judge’s direction, Gautam Adani had filed an affidavit on July 15, 2026,0 the court’s July 8 order seeking clarification on whether his pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States was linked to the Department of Justice decision to the affidavit Adani stated that he announced the investment pledge in November 2024, a period preceding the indictment and the Securities and Exchange Commission complaint were unsealed. He asserted that he had no knowledge of any quashing any suggestion of a quid pro quo arrangement. In the affidavit Adani declared that he was unaware of any promise, offer, receipt or acceptance connected to the proposed dismissal of the indictment. He denied any awareness of an agreement to exchange something for the withdrawal of the charges.
Adani further explained that the $10 billion investment pledge had been announced in November 2024, well before the indictment and the SEC complaint were made public. He claimed that he had no knowledge of either proceeding at the time of the announcement. The affidavit noted that his lawyers had later suggested, during settlement discussions, that the investment pledge could be incorporated into a resolution if the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission wished to do so. However, Nocella had communicated to the defence that the investment proposal would not be considered while evaluating whether to seek dismissal of the indictment, and that other grounds for resolution were under exploration.
Implications of the Judicial Inquiry
The court’s request for a sworn statement places the Department of Justice’s dismissal motion under heightened scrutiny. By requiring Nocella to testify under oath about his involvement and the basis for the dismissal, the judge seeks to ascertain whether the decision was made in accordance with proper prosecutorial discretion and whether any extraneous considerations influenced the outcome. The proceeding underscores the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive actions that affect substantive rights, particularly in high‑profile cases involving foreign nationals and substantial financial allegations.
The outcome of the sworn statement may affect the court’s ultimate ruling on the dismissal motion. Should the statement reveal inconsistencies or unsupported grounds, the judge could deny the dismissal, allowing the indictment to proceed. Conversely, a satisfactory explanation could lead to the court granting the dismissal, thereby concluding the criminal proceedings at the federal level.