The affidavit and the indictment

The affidavit was filed after a July 8 order from U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who asked whether any “exchange of value” accompanied the DOJ’s decision to drop the charges. The indictment, unsealed in November 2024, accused Adani and seven associates of paying roughly $250 million in bribes to Indian officials to win power contracts while misleading U.S. investors. In the sworn statement, Adani said he knew of no promise, offer, request, receipt, agreement or acceptance linked to the dismissal.

His lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell discussed the group’s planned U.S. investments as part of a broader resolution, but the Justice Department says those talks never influenced the dismissal decision.

DOJ’s technical defense

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter gave four reasons the prosecution was “indefensible”:

  • Jurisdictional challenges – most alleged conduct happened in India, with key witnesses and evidence outside U.S. territory.
  • No investor loss – the department found no documented loss to U.S. investors from the alleged securities fraud.
  • Prior Indian investigations – Indian authorities had already examined the matter and found nothing actionable.
  • Shift in enforcement priorities – under the Trump Administration, the DOJ moved away from Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases toward national-security and transnational criminal organizations.

McCotter added that the indictment may have been a “name-and-shame” move unsealed at the tail end of the previous administration rather than a case built for trial.

Judicial caution

Judge Garaufis has not yet signed a dismissal “with prejudice,” which would close the case permanently. He noted that the notion of an undisclosed agreement surfaced only in recent filings and that any dismissal must rest on a genuine, untainted rationale. His caution reflects worries that high-profile foreign corporate cases could set precedents for how U.S. prosecutors handle cross-border misconduct.

Market fallout

When the indictment first appeared, Adura Group stocks fell for four trading sessions, erasing nearly ₹2.85 lakh crore in market capitalization. The swing hit millions of retail and institutional investors in India, showing how U.S. legal actions can trigger rapid wealth loss for Indian shareholders. The episode also sparked calls for stronger safeguards against sudden capital-market shocks tied to overseas regulatory moves.

What’s at stake for India

  • Regulatory sovereignty – The DOJ’s admission that the case was “indefensible” because the conduct centered in India reinforces the role of Indian agencies such as SEBI and the CBI in policing domestic corporate behavior.
  • Investor confidence – The episode highlights the vulnerability of Indian capital markets to foreign legal actions, pressing regulators to consider mechanisms that can cushion abrupt, large-scale sell-offs.
  • Future investment pipelines – The outcome will shape how Indian conglomerates approach large-scale projects abroad, especially when U.S. compliance expectations intersect with home-country governance.

The affidavit puts the burden on the court to separate legal technicalities from any perception of a quid-pro-quo. How the judge rules will affect not only Adani’s future in the United States but also the broader calculus of cross-border corporate risk for Indian firms.