The US Department of Justice has permanently dropped all criminal charges against Indian industrialist Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani, closing a high-profile securities and wire fraud case in the Eastern District of New York after prosecutors concluded the allegations could not be sustained.
The decision follows a series of recent resolutions in separate US proceedings involving the Adani Group. Last week the US Securities and Exchange Commission reached civil settlements with the two men over disclosures tied to solar energy projects in India: Gautam Adani agreed to pay USD 6 million and Sagar Adani USD 12 million, each without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
Shortly before the DOJ filing, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) resolved allegations that the group violated US sanctions on Iran in LPG imports. That settlement required the conglomerate to pay USD 275 million and reflected what OFAC described as “extensive cooperation” and proactive disclosures by the company.
In a court filing, DOJ attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the indictment against the Adanis with prejudice. The department said it had reviewed the matter and, in its prosecutorial discretion, decided not to devote further resources to criminally pursuing the individual defendants. The court ordered the indictment dismissed with prejudice, a step that prevents the same charges from being refiled.
The dismissal marks a dramatic reversal in a case that had threatened to complicate the Adani Group’s international expansion. The SEC and DOJ actions, filed in late 2024, alleged an orchestrated USD 265 million bribery scheme to obtain solar-power contracts in India and accused the defendants of hiding the arrangement from US investors and lenders while raising capital.
Prosecutors ultimately determined they lacked clear US nexus and sufficient admissible evidence to sustain criminal charges against Gautam and Sagar Adani, people familiar with the matter said. Such dismissals with prejudice are uncommon and typically signify that, after extensive review, continued prosecution is not warranted.
The outcome followed months of vigorous engagement between US authorities and a defense team assembled by the Adanis. Five American counsel from Sullivan & Cromwell, together with Nixon Peabody, Hecker Fink, Norton Rose Fulbright and Bracewell, made detailed submissions and presentations during the review process. Those efforts, according to court filings and participants, failed to produce findings capable of supporting criminal charges against the two defendants.
Public court submissions disclosed on April 7, 2026 showed Adani’s lawyers mounting a forceful challenge to the SEC’s fraud-related claims, calling them an impermissible extraterritorial application of US securities laws. The defense argued the matter involved Indian defendants and an Indian issuer, securities not traded on US exchanges, and conduct that occurred in India, meaning the SEC lacked jurisdiction.
The filings also contested that the SEC had failed to establish actionable misstatements or tie either defendant to the bond offering at issue. Lawyers for the Adanis said there were no investor losses, all bond obligations were met, and Gautam Adani did not authorize issuance of the bonds. Critics of the government’s approach had questioned whether securities statutes were being stretched to reach conduct centered overseas.
Notably, Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain were charged only under securities and wire fraud statutes (counts 2, 3 and 4). They were not named in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bribery charge or the obstruction-related count (counts 1 and 5), which remained directed at other defendants in the broader indictment.
The Adani Group has consistently called the allegations meritless, defended its governance and compliance practices, and said it would contest the proceedings through legal channels. With the DOJ’s dismissal and recent settlements, multiple US investigations into the group have now closed, bringing the matter to an apparent legal conclusion in the United States.
