US court unlikely to reject DO
US legal experts said it would be highly unusual for a federal court to reject the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, as prosecutors have outlined detailed legal and policy reasons for seeking to dismiss the indictment.
Under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Justice Department must obtain the court’s permission to dismiss the indictment. While judges can ask for additional information or hold hearings before rendering a verdict, legal experts said there is little modern precedent for forcing prosecutors to pursue a case that the executive branch has decided to drop.
“It would be very unusual if the courts did anything other than accept the department’s argument and dismiss the case,” Adam Goldberg, corporate investigations partner at Pillsbury, told PTI Video. “The Department of Justice has not only provided tremendous detail regarding the many reasons why it does not wish to prosecute, but has also provided reasonable and supported explanations as to why it does not wish to proceed.” The US Justice Department, in a 10-page written submission, told the New York court that criminal charges against Adani and others should be dismissed because the conduct occurred abroad and involved foreigners, the case is difficult to prove, and is inconsistent with US priorities.
The letter came in response to an order from US District Judge Nicholas Garoufis on June 26, directing the government to explain its reasoning for dismissing the charges.
“In that case, it would be incredibly unusual for the court to do anything other than dismiss. The court could try to pursue it, but it doesn’t really have the authority to force the Justice Department to prosecute a case the department doesn’t want to prosecute. So I would expect the court to grant this dismissal and the case will be dismissed,” Goldberg said.
The DOJ in 2024, under the previous Biden administration, indicted Adani and others for allegedly engaging in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials US$250 million and lie to investors to obtain billions of dollars in investments from other entities – during which the alleged scheme Adani Green Energy Ltd. raised at least US$175 million from US investors.
In a sharply worded 10-page filing, the DOJ vigorously defended its decision to drop the criminal case against Adani and seven others, telling a federal judge that the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities.
“The case should have been dropped a year ago – or it should never have been brought in the first place,” it said, arguing that the court had only a limited role in reviewing its decision to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
The department cited six broad reasons for dropping all charges, including that the alleged conduct was largely concentrated in India, Indian authorities had investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, investors suffered no financial losses, key evidence and witnesses were located abroad, the defendants were unlikely to appear before a US court, and the prosecution faced significant evidentiary obstacles.
“This is a foreign matter,” it said.
Chris Mann, a senior U.S. attorney familiar with federal criminal practice, said it is not unusual for a judge to ask for additional briefing before ruling on a Rule 48(a) motion.
“That, in itself, is not unusual,” Mann said. “Judges have very little discretion. There is effectively no modern precedent for a judge forcing the Justice Department to prosecute a case that the executive branch should have dropped.” He said criminal prosecution is constitutionally an executive function and courts have historically given considerable deference to prosecutorial decisions. By asking for additional information the court can satisfy itself that the government’s request is being made in good faith and consistent with Rule 48(a).
Mann pointed to the recent corruption case involving New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in which the Justice Department sought to dismiss the indictment. The judge asked for additional clarifications and held a hearing before ultimately granting the government’s request, but did not require prosecutors to continue with the case.
Separately, Seth Levin, a partner at Levin Lee LLP, said the Justice Department has provided a detailed rationale for seeking dismissal.
“The Department is taking an important step in dismissing the impeachment, which no administration takes lightly,” Levin said. “The Department has provided a fairly detailed explanation of the many reasons, including legal, policy and procedural reasons, why they believe it is in the public interest to dismiss this indictment.” Levin said that while the role of courts in reviewing such requests is debated in the United States, the Justice Department has also argued that judicial discretion under Rule 48(a) is limited.
