The dismissal of criminal charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vineet Jain by a US court amounts to a “complete clean chit” for the three executives, according to senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Mahesh Jethmalani.
The court dismissed the charges with prejudice, meaning the same charges cannot be brought against the individuals again. Jethmalani said this brings the criminal proceedings to a complete end and the case cannot be revived by the US Department of Justice or another US securities authority.
The court had accepted the DOJ's motion to dismiss the fraud-related charges after seeking additional information and reasons from the department. Importantly, it did not simply rubber-stamp the DOJ's request, but conducted its own analysis before concluding that the charges should be dismissed.
‘No prosecutable evidence'
Jethmalani said the DOJ's original case alleged that disclosures to US bondholders had failed to mention payments in India linked to contracts for solar projects secured by the Adani group.
However, he said the DOJ had not alleged that bribes were actually paid to secure those contracts. Instead, the case involved isan alleged conspiracy to bribe, for which there was no evidence of an agreement to commit bribery, he said.
The DOJ has now said there was no prosecutable evidence for the alleged charges, according to Jethmalani.
No link to $10 billion US investment
The court also examined whether Adani's announced $10 billion US investment commitment had any connection with the DOJ's decision to seek dismissal.
Jethmalani said the judge specifically wanted to establish whether the investment was a quid pro quo for withdrawing the case. Following its review, the court concluded that the investment was independent of the dismissal and had no connection with the DOJ's decision.
‘Corporate Puffery' Finding
Another key finding related to anti-bribery and compliance statements cited in the alleged misrepresentation case.
Jethmalani said the court found these statements to be generic corporate language rather than specific representations that could have induced investors to buy the bonds. Such disclaimers are common in fundraising documents and serve as legal safeguards, he said.
The court therefore viewed the statements as “corporate puffery” rather than actionable claims.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.
