United States Attorney Joseph Nocella Junior has submitted before a federal court that his involvement in the criminal case against Indian industrialist Gautam Adani did not contradict the US Department of Justice’s assertion that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) Trent McCotter was the sole decision-maker behind the move to seek dismissal of the indictment.
In a sworn declaration filed before the US District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork, Nocella stated that while he participated in discussions concerning the case, the ultimate decision to discontinue the prosecution rested exclusively with McCotter.
The declaration was filed after Judge Nicholas G Garaufis questioned an apparent inconsistency in the DOJ’s submissions. The Court had sought clarification following the production of a May 11 email from Nocella by Adani’s legal team, in which he rejected a proposal involving investment worth USD 10 billion in the United States as part of a possible resolution of the criminal proceedings.
Judge Garaufis observed that the email appeared to indicate Nocella’s involvement in discussions relating to the potential resolution of the case, raising questions about McCotter’s earlier claim that he was the “final and sole decision-maker.”
Responding to the Court’s concerns, Nocella acknowledged attending multiple meetings with defence counsel as well as internal Justice Department discussions. However, he maintained that McCotter alone exercised the authority to decide that the prosecution should be discontinued.
According to Nocella’s declaration, the choice to stop deploying resources and drop the indictment was made solely by Mr McCotter as PADAG following a series of meetings. Nocella clarified that he was completely excluded from the decision-making process and did not help draft McCotter’s July 4 dismissal letter, emphasising that he was neither the decision-maker nor involved in authoring the correspondence.
He also supported McCotter’s explanation for dropping the case, telling the Court that he had no reason to believe the grounds advanced by the DOJ were anything other than the genuine basis for the application.
The declaration follows an affidavit filed by Gautam Adani on July 15, in which the businessman denied any knowledge of a quid pro quo between his proposed investment in the United States and the DOJ’s decision to seek dismissal of the indictment. Adani stated that he neither offered nor was aware of any promise, agreement or exchange connected with the withdrawal of the criminal charges.
The affidavit was submitted pursuant to Judge Garaufis’ July 8 order, which sought clarification on whether Adani’s previously announced USD 10 billion investment proposal had any connection with the DOJ’s move to abandon the prosecution.
According to Adani, the investment announcement was made in November 2024 before the indictment and the accompanying civil complaint by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were unsealed. He asserted that he had no knowledge of either proceeding at the time.
The indictment alleged that Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, Vineet Jain, Ranjit Gupta and others orchestrated a scheme to pay bribes to Indian state government officials to secure contracts for a 12-gigawatt solar power project. Prosecutors alleged that bribes amounting to Rs 2,029 crore (approximately USD 265 million) were promised to officials of state electricity distribution companies, including Rs 1,750 crore allegedly earmarked for officials in Andhra Pradesh to secure the purchase of 7 gigawatts of solar power.
The DOJ subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment against all eight accused. However, on June 25, Judge Garaufis declined to immediately approve the request and directed the government to explain the reasons for abandoning the prosecution.
In its July 4 filing, the DOJ described the case as a “name-and-shame” prosecution initiated during the closing days of the Biden administration without any realistic prospect of trial. It argued that the matter was overwhelmingly foreign in nature, involving Indian nationals allegedly bribing other Indian nationals in connection with Indian electricity contracts.
In his July 8 order, Judge Garaufis observed that while considering a motion under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court must be satisfied that the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal are genuine, substantial and represent the real basis for the application. Finding no evidence of any undisclosed agreement at that stage, the Court nevertheless sought Adani’s affidavit before ruling on the DOJ’s request.
Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vineet Jain are represented in the proceedings by Robert J Giuffra Junior, co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and personal counsel to US President Donald Trump, along with the firm’s partner James McDonald.
The post US Attorney says DOJ Official alone decided to drop Gautam Adani prosecution; denies contradictory role appeared first on India Legal.