New Delhi: Forced by a federal judge to explain its abrupt decision to abandon the criminal prosecution of billionaire Gautam Adani, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on Saturday accused the previous Biden administration of bringing a politically motivated “name and shame” case, while claiming that Indian authorities had already investigated many of the allegations and found “no actionable misconduct”.However, the three Indian decisions appended to the filing show that none examined the alleged bribery scheme that forms the basis of the US indictment.The ten-page submission, filed before Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Friday, came in response to the judge’s June 26 order refusing to immediately approve the department’s request to dismiss with prejudice the indictment against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vneet Jaain and five others.Calling the DOJ’s original dismissal motion “terse, bland and conclusory”, Garaufis had directed prosecutors to explain “each reason” for seeking dismissal and provide “sufficient factual support” before the court could decide whether to approve it. Among the department’s principal justifications for seeking dismissal was its contention that Indian authorities had already examined many of the allegations underpinning the case.“India has investigated many of the allegations in this case and in several reports and decisions issued in 2026 has found no actionable misconduct,” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote. He added that after reviewing the attached Indian decisions, “the country with by far the strongest interest here seems to have concluded nothing inappropriate happened.”A closer reading of the three annexures, however, shows that none adjudicated the alleged bribery scheme at the heart of the US indictment.The first is an April 2026 order of the Competition Commission of India dismissing a complaint alleging anti-competitive conduct in the award of Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) renewable energy contracts. Although the complainant relied extensively on the US indictment, including its allegations that Adani executives bribed Indian state officials to secure power purchase agreements, the Commission confined itself to determining whether the material disclosed a prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act governing anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance. It did not examine whether public officials had received illegal payments. Instead, the CCI concluded that the complainant had failed to produce evidence of anti-competitive conduct or establish that Adani Group occupied a dominant position in the relevant market. It noted that India’s power sector included several large public and private players, including NTPC, Power Grid Corporation, Tata Power and Torrent Power, and held that there was “no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.”The second annexure is a Delhi high court judgment dated March 10, 2026 dismissing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ravi Sharma. The petitioner bears the same name as the complainant before the Competition Commission, although the orders do not establish if they are same person.The petitioner alleged that the transfer of Azure Power’s project capacity to Adani Green Energy had been effected “by way of adopting corrupt practices” and sought a court-monitored investigation. The court, however, expressly declined to examine those allegations.After hearing the parties, the bench observed that “we do not propose to enter into such arena.” It later held that it was “not inclined to enter into the arena of investigation and fishing and roving enquiry”, noting that any grievance relating to the tender process ought to be pursued by competing bidders rather than through a public interest petition and that the petitioner had failed to establish any public injury.The third annexure is a Bombay high court judgment of March 27, 2026, dismissing another PIL that sought directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register an FIR into the alleged bribery scheme described in the US indictment. Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Anil C. Singh relied on the Delhi high court’s earlier dismissal of a similar PIL. The Bombay high court, however, did not examine whether the alleged bribes had in fact been paid. Instead, it dismissed the petition on grounds of maintainability, holding that the petitioner lacked bona fides and locus standi. Describing the case as “clearly an abuse of the process of the Court”, the bench said the petition “does not serve any public purpose.”None of the three annexures appended by the DOJ contains findings on whether the alleged bribery conspiracy described in the US indictment occurred. Nor do they indicate that any Indian criminal investigative agency examined the alleged payments to public officials that form the basis of the US prosecution.In the opening pages of the filing, McCotter argued that the court should not have required the department to explain its decision at all, contending that decisions to initiate or abandon criminal prosecutions fall within the executive’s constitutional authority.The department’s original dismissal motion, he asserted, had been intentionally brief because that is how Rule 48 motions are ordinarily presented. Nevertheless, because Judge Garaufis had insisted on further explanation, the department was making only a “limited waiver” of executive privilege to explain its reasoning, he wrote.In a footnote, McCotter acknowledged the unusual fact that he alone had signed the filing. He explained that he had deliberately not asked the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York or the prosecutors who handled the case to sign because “I was the final and sole decisionmaker to seek dismissal of the charges here.”He added that he did not want the US Attorney’s Office “criticizing, even indirectly, the work of the line attorneys simply to justify the exercise of the Executive’s prerogative power to dismiss these charges,” while praising the prosecutors as “exceedingly professional and supportive throughout this process.”Even the original May 18 motion had only his name and none of the line prosecutors. The Wall Street Journal had reported, citing sources, that it signalled disagreement with the outcome. Two of the prosecutors had also filed motion to withdraw from the case two days later.The newspaper also reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that Boris Epshteyn, President Donald Trump’s longtime adviser and personal lawyer, had supported McCotter’s appointment to the Justice Department. According to the report, Epshteyn’s purported involvement in Adani’s defence effort was discussed within the department because of his proximity to Trump, although he neither attended meetings with prosecutors nor appeared on any court filings. Epshteyn denied having any relationship with Adani or involvement in the case, while a Justice Department spokeswoman told the newspaper that McCotter’s appointment was based solely on “experience and merit” and that neither McCotter nor acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had any discussions with Epshteyn about the matter. Adani Group and Sullivan & Cromwell also denied that Epshteyn had any role in the company’s defence.McCotter’s letter sharply criticised the prosecution brought by the previous administration, portraying it as a politically motivated “name and shame” exercise.“The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call,” he wrote, after describing months of meetings with defence lawyers, review of hundreds of pages of submissions and independent legal research.“The indictment was unsealed in the final days of the prior Administration, apparently as a ‘name and shame’ designed to levy accusations without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring”.He wrote that officials at the time were “surely aware they were dropping a potential quagmire of a case into the lap of the incoming Administration,” and suggested “perhaps that was an intentional choice.”The indictment against Adani and the other defendants was unsealed in November 2024, after Donald Trump had won the presidential election but before he assumed office in January 2025.McCotter also noted that nearly 18 months after the indictment, none of the defendants had appeared before the court, arguing that the previous administration had little realistic prospect of ever bringing the case to trial. The issue of service has itself been contentious. In the SEC civil case, the regulator told Judge Garaufis earlier this year that it had abandoned efforts to serve Gautam and Sagar Adani through the Hague Convention after India’s Ministry of Law and Justice twice declined to execute its requests, prompting the SEC to seek permission to serve the summons through the defendants’ US lawyers and by email.McCotter argued separately that the securities charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain could not have been proven under US law. He wrote that the transactions were predominantly foreign and fell outside the jurisdictional reach of American securities statutes, citing the Supreme Court’s Morrison v National Australia Bank ruling and related appellate precedent.McCotter further questioned whether prosecutors could prove that sophisticated institutional investors had actually been deceived.“It would have been difficult to prove that those ultra-sophisticated investment entities were tricked by what were platitudes in the offering materials,” he wrote, particularly when “not a single penny has ever been lost on the securities at issue” because the bonds had either been repaid or continued to be serviced.He concluded that “the allegations here would be appropriate for a civil resolution at the very most”, noting that the parallel Securities and Exchange Commission case had already been settled.McCotter argued that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges likewise conflicted with the Justice Department’s current enforcement priorities under Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum.“The alleged payments in this case were made by Indian nationals, working for Indian companies, to the Indian government, with no U.S. interests implicated in any way,” he wrote. “Under the Blanche Memorandum, the FCPA charges should have been dismissed a year ago.”The filing also questioned whether prosecutors could ultimately establish that the alleged payments constituted bribes at all.“Further, it is entirely unclear that the prosecution could prove that the alleged payments in this case were not legitimate commercial transactions,” McCotter wrote, suggesting they could instead be characterised as customer rebates, “a common and acceptable commercial practice.”The filing also sought to rebut reports, first published by the New York Times, that Adani’s lawyer Robert Giuffra had discussed the group’s proposed US investment plans during meetings with Justice Department officials.McCotter disputed suggestions that the investment proposal influenced his decision to abandon the prosecution.“The current or former Department attorneys who unethically fed those stories have suggested that I sought dismissal of the securities charges at least in part because of some promise by those defendants to invest money in the United States. That is false,” he wrote. “Before that topic first arose, I had already firmly concluded I would seek dismissal of the securities charges no matter what, because they were so indefensible.”Notably, McCotter did not deny that the issue of investments arose during discussions with defence lawyers. Instead, he argued that he had already reached his decision before the subject was raised and therefore “the mention of potential investments could not have played any role.”He further wrote that Adani had “publicly and expressly indicated a desire to invest in the United States even before the prior Administration publicly unveiled its name-and-shame indictment” and argued that “such a factor would be entirely fair to consider” in any event.Adani announced on November 13, 2024, a week after Donald Trump’s election victory but before the indictment was unsealed on November 20, that the group planned to invest $10 billion in US energy and infrastructure projects and create 15,000 jobs. The New York Times later reported that Giuffra reiterated that proposal during an April meeting with Justice Department officials, although prosecutors present at the meeting said the investment would not influence the criminal case.US authorities launched parallel criminal and civil actions against the Adanis in November 2024. The criminal indictment alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and other executives orchestrated a years-long $250 bribery scheme to secure renewable energy contracts in India and misled investors who purchased US-linked debt securities. In the companion civil case, the SEC accused Gautam and Sagar Adani of misleading investors through statements made in offering documents for a 2021 bond issue.In May this year, the SEC reached a proposed settlement under which the two Adanis agreed to pay a combined $18 million in civil penalties without admitting or denying the allegations. Four days later, the Justice Department moved to abandon the criminal prosecution, saying only that it had decided, “in its prosecutorial discretion,” not to devote further resources to pursuing the case.