“The judge’s order is procedural,” said Chris Man, a US lawyer who follows federal criminal practice. His reading of the Adani case is blunt: a New York judge has asked the Justice Department to show its homework, and that is all.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn has told prosecutors their May 18 announcement that they would drop the case did not explain the decision well enough. The indictment charged Gautam Adani with securities fraud and wire fraud over an alleged bribery scheme. The judge has given the department until July 13 to file a detailed account of its reasons.
What Rule 48(a) requires
Under Rule 48(a), prosecutors need the court’s leave to dismiss an indictment. Judges can ask questions or call for extra briefing first. “That, by itself, is not unusual,” Man said. In his view the court is building a record so it can satisfy itself that the request is made in good faith.
The rule is a gate, not a veto. Man said there is little precedent for a federal court forcing prosecutors to keep pursuing a case once the department has decided to abandon it, and that judges “have little discretion.” His words: “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 did not read the request as a sign that dismissal is in doubt. The department will probably answer before the deadline, he said, and “that case is likely to be dismissed within weeks and not months. The judge can do that even without a hearing.” Asked separately whether Garaufis could refuse, Man conceded the point is unclear: the rule seems to allow it, but it has never happened in practice.
The Adams comparison
Man pointed to the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. There, the Justice Department also sought dismissal. The judge asked for more explanation and held hearings, then granted the motion anyway. Legal experts say that case showed judges may scrutinise a prosecutor’s rationale to guard against abuse, but their power to override the executive on abandoning a prosecution is extremely limited.
What Adani told the court
In a June 24 letter to the court, Adani’s lawyers argued the case lay beyond the reach of US law. They said the transactions were run by non-US issuers and lenders, that every offering document was drafted, reviewed and approved outside the United States, and that both bond offerings were governed by English law. That put the case outside US securities law, they argued, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
On the bribery allegations, the letter relied on expert evidence from a former senior Indian regulatory official. The defence said the payments in question coincided with documented, lawful price cuts that Adani Green offered Indian state power companies to win solar contracts. Those were ordinary commercial concessions, it argued, not bribes.
The defence also described how much work preceded the department’s decision. Between February and April 2026, Adani’s lawyers gave prosecutors nearly 500 pages of facts, law and expert testimony. That included a 118-page letter with reports from a Harvard Law School securities law professor and a former SEC commissioner.
And no investor lost money, the lawyers said. The indictment alleges no losses on any of the four transactions. The 2021 bonds have matured with all interest paid, the 2024 bonds have missed no payments, the 2021 loan was repaid in full, and the 2023 loan is not in default.
Sources
- Adani case: NY judge's query procedural, unlikely to derail DoJ bid to drop charges, says US lawyer
- Adani Indictment Dismissal Review: Judge Seeks Detailed DOJ Explanation
