US DOJ Defends Bid to Drop Gautam Adani Case, Cites Jurisdiction and Lack of Harm to Investors

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended its decision to withdraw criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, arguing that the case falls outside the department's current enforcement priorities, is largely centred on alleged conduct in India, and would be difficult to prosecute.

In a 10-page filing submitted on Saturday, the DOJ asked a federal court to dismiss all charges against Adani and the other defendants with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be revived on the same allegations. The submission came after U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis directed prosecutors last month to explain why they were seeking to abandon the case, according to a report in Reuters.

The charges were originally filed during the administration of former US President Joe Biden. Prosecutors had accused Adani of securities fraud and wire fraud in connection with an alleged bribery scheme linked to energy projects in India.

DOJ Cites Jurisdiction and Policy Criorities

In its latest court filing, the Justice Department argued that the alleged misconduct was overwhelmingly domestic to India and had little connection to US interests. It also maintained that the case did not involve issues such as national security, organised transnational crime or harm to American investors - factors that now guide the department's prosecutorial priorities.

According to the DOJ, pursuing a complex foreign bribery case with limited ties to the United States would not be consistent with its current enforcement approach.

Legal Experts Weigh In

US attorney Adam Goldberg said the department's reasoning reflected a shift in prosecutorial priorities rather than a reassessment of the underlying allegations.

Speaking to ANI, Goldberg said the absence of any proven losses to US investors significantly weakened the case from an American enforcement perspective. He also pointed out that the matter had no national security implications or links to transnational criminal organisations. Goldberg added that Indian authorities had already examined the allegations and had not found evidence warranting prosecution, making that an important consideration in the DOJ's decision.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said the latest filing suggests the current Justice Department no longer wishes to pursue a case initiated under the previous administration.

According to Pahwa, the department has primarily relied on questions of jurisdiction, arguing that the alleged acts, the accused individuals and the purported bribery transactions were all based in India. In such circumstances, he said, the DOJ questioned why American authorities should investigate conduct that allegedly took place entirely within another country's jurisdiction.

#WATCH | San Francisco, USA: On the US Justice Department defending its move to drop the criminal case against Gautam Adani, US lawyer Adam Goldberg says, "... From my perspective, the most significant is likely the fact that the case falls outside the very clearly delineated… pic.twitter.com/l2YQHK1wwE

— ANI (@ANI) July 6, 2026

He also noted that the federal court had sought a detailed explanation before approving the dismissal and that the Justice Department had now made its position unequivocally clear by stating it does not intend to continue prosecuting the case.

Meanwhile, New York-based attorney Jim Walden described the DOJ's submission as comprehensive and said it was not unusual for prosecutors to provide detailed reasoning when a court seeks clarification, particularly in a high-profile matter.

Walden argued that the judge's role is now limited to deciding whether to grant the government's request for dismissal. He further said the case highlighted the limits of US jurisdiction, noting that Indian authorities had already reviewed the allegations and that American courts should avoid prosecuting matters involving alleged misconduct that occurred entirely overseas unless there is a clear legal basis to do so.

The court is now expected to decide whether to accept the Justice Department's request and formally dismiss the case against Adani and the other defendants.