Legal experts in the US opine that it would be highly unusual for a federal court to reject the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, after prosecutors set out detailed legal and policy reasons for seeking to drop the indictment.
Executive’s decision the final word?
Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the US Justice Department to obtain the court’s permission to dismiss an indictment. While judges may seek additional information or hold hearings before ruling, legal experts said there is little modern precedent for compelling prosecutors to continue pursuing a case the executive branch has decided to abandon.
Also read: US DOJ defends Adani case dismissal, denies it’s tied to investment plans
“It would be very unusual if the courts were to do anything more than accept the department’s reasoning and dismiss the case,” Adam Goldberg, Corporate Investigations partner at Pillsbury, told PTI.
“The Department of Justice has provided tremendous amounts of detail not just with respect to a host of reasons why it does not want to prosecute, but reasonable and supported explanations for why it doesn’t want to move forward.”
Why does DOJ want case dropped?
The US Justice Department, in a 10-page written submission, told the New York court that criminal charges against Adani and others should be dismissed because the conduct occurred abroad and involved foreigners, the case is difficult to prove, and it is inconsistent with US priorities.
The letter came in response to an order on June 26 from US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis directing the government to explain its reasoning for dismissing the charges.
Also read: US court declines immediate dismissal of Adani bribery charges, seeks DOJ explanation
“In that case, it would be incredibly unusual for the court to do anything other than dismiss. The court might try to extend it further, but it really doesn’t have the authority to force the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the department does not want to prosecute. So I would expect the court to approve this dismissal and the case would be dismissed,” Goldberg added.
2024 indictment
The DOJ, in 2024, under the previous Biden administration, indicted Adani and others for allegedly being involved in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to the tune of USD 250 million and to lie to investors to receive billions more in investments from other entities – during which alleged scheme Adani Green Energy Ltd raised at least USD 175 million from US investors.
Also read: Adani’s indictment in US triggers political upheaval in Delhi
In the sharply-worded 10-page filing, the DOJ forcefully defended its decision to abandon the criminal case against Adani and seven others, telling a federal judge the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities.
The case “should have been dropped a year ago – or never brought in the first place,” it said, arguing that the court had only a limited role in reviewing its decision to dismiss charges with prejudice.
DOJ cites 6 reasons
The department cited six overarching reasons for dropping all charges, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, Indian authorities had investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, investors suffered no financial losses, key evidence and witnesses were located abroad, the defendants were unlikely to ever appear before a US court, and the prosecution faced significant evidentiary hurdles.
“This is a foreign case,” it said.
Chris Man, a senior US lawyer familiar with federal criminal practice, told PTI that it is not unusual for a judge to seek additional briefing before ruling on a Rule 48(a) motion.
‘Additional briefing demand not usual’
“That, by itself, is not unusual,” Man said. “Judges have little discretion. There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Department of Justice to prosecute a case that the executive branch has determined should be abandoned.”
He said criminal prosecutions are constitutionally an executive function and courts have historically given substantial deference to prosecutorial decisions. Seeking additional information allows the court to satisfy itself that the government’s request is being made in good faith and is consistent with Rule 48(a).
Also read: Gautam Adani responds to US indictment; calls it ‘vested reporting’
Man pointed to the recent corruption case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in which the Justice Department sought dismissal of the indictment. The judge sought additional explanations and held hearings before ultimately granting the government’s request, but did not require prosecutors to continue with the case.
Separately, Seth Levine, a partner at Levine Lee LLP, said the Justice Department had laid out a detailed rationale for seeking dismissal.
“The Department is taking an important step of dismissing an indictment, which no administration does lightly,” Levine said. “The department has provided a fairly detailed explanation of multiple reasons why they believe it is in the public interest to dismiss this indictment, including legal, policy and procedural reasons,” Levine added that while there is debate in the United States over the role of courts in reviewing such requests, the Justice Department has also argued that judicial discretion under Rule 48(a) is limited.
Comments are closed.