- US DoJ seeks dismissal of the Adani case citing jurisdictional issues and no US financial loss
- The filing argues the alleged conduct occurred in India with key evidence and witnesses outside the US
- The Justice Department contends the prosecution lacked merit and investors did not suffer financial harm
The US Department of Justice's detailed explanation for seeking dismissal of the criminal case against Gautam Adani and seven others has shifted attention from the allegations themselves to broader questions around jurisdiction, prosecutorial discretion and the practical challenges of pursuing cross-border cases.
Legal experts and market participants said the department's 10-page filing presents a case that the prosecution should not have proceeded because the alleged conduct was centred in India, key evidence and witnesses were located outside the United States, and investors did not suffer financial losses. They also discussed what the filing could mean for the court process and investor sentiment.
The filing was submitted after US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis sought a fuller explanation from the Justice Department for its request to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. The department responded that the decision followed an extensive review of the case and was based on legal, evidentiary and policy considerations.
Jurisdiction
Senior advocate Sanjay Asher, Senior Partner at Crawford Bayley, said jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement in any legal proceeding.
"If there is no jurisdiction, then the question is of maintainability," Asher told NDTV in during a panel discussion. "The first aspect of any litigation or any cause of action is whether there is jurisdiction. Here, the Department of Justice has taken the view that the matter cannot be maintained before a US court because no cause of action arose in the United States."
The Justice Department similarly argued that the alleged conduct involved Indian parties, Indian contracts and events that took place in India. It also noted that Indian authorities had examined the allegations and found no actionable misconduct.
Filing Focuses On Merits Of The Case
The panel also highlighted that the Justice Department's submission went beyond procedural issues and addressed the underlying legal basis of the prosecution.
Lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai said the filing should be viewed as a decision based on the merits of the case rather than a procedural development.
"This is not merely because of some procedural reasons," Dehadrai said. "The Department of Justice is saying that the prosecution ought not to have been brought in the first place."
The filing states that investors suffered no financial losses because the securities continued to be serviced or had already been repaid. It also argues that the statements cited in the indictment amounted largely to corporate "platitudes" and "puffery" that institutional investors were unlikely to have relied upon. The department concluded that the criminal securities charges "should never have been brought".
Court's Role After DOJ's Request
Dehadrai said the Justice Department's request for dismissal with prejudice limits the scope for future prosecution on the same charges if the court grants the motion. He also said that, under US criminal procedure, the court's role is confined to determining whether the government's request has been made in good faith.
Asher said courts examine the legal basis for such requests before passing an order, adding that jurisdiction remains central to that assessment.
The Justice Department has argued that requiring prosecutors to publicly justify decisions to dismiss cases could expose internal deliberations and discourage future dismissals where prosecutors conclude that continuing a case is not in the interests of justice.
ALSO READ: 'Catastrophic Flaws' And Unethical Leaks': DOJ Blasts Internal Mishandling Of Adani Prosecution
Enforcement Priorities Also Discussed
The filing also links the decision to current enforcement priorities within the Justice Department.
It says the alleged conduct did not involve US national security, organised crime, harm to US companies or other factors identified in a June 2025 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Dehadrai said the filing reflects a shift in prosecutorial priorities compared with those that existed when the case was filed in 2024. He described the department's latest position as significant because it questions the legal basis for pursuing the prosecution.
Market Reaction May Remain Measured
Market expert Sudeep Bandopadhyay said investors had largely factored the development into their assessment of Adani Group companies.
"The market has moved much beyond these allegations," Bandopadhyay said. He pointed to the strong response to Adani Enterprises' recent qualified institutional placement as an indication of investor confidence.
Bandopadhyay said the Justice Department's filing could reinforce positive sentiment, although he did not expect a significant market reaction solely because of the submission.
What Comes Next
The Justice Department has asked the federal court to dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing that continuing the proceedings would prolong uncertainty despite its conclusion that the prosecution should not proceed.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis will now decide whether to accept the department's request after considering the detailed explanation submitted by prosecutors.
(Disclaimer: New Delhi Television is a subsidiary of AMG Media Networks Limited, an Adani Group Company.)
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.