US Judge Criticizes Closure of Criminal Case Against Adani, Demands Further Explanation

A federal judge in the United States sharply criticized the Justice Department's decision to close the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, owner of the Haifa port. Judge Garaufis highlighted "disturbing irregularities" in how the decision was made, particularly noting repeated attempts by the prosecution to resolve the bribery case through financial offers. However, the judge clarified that the investment proposal by Adani was not the reason for the case's dismissal.

The case, which focused on individual defendants including Adani but did not charge the Adani Group itself, was dropped in May after extensive review by the Justice Department. The department stated it made the decision after meeting with defense attorneys, reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence, and conducting independent analysis. Judge Garaufis also noted that some financial document language deemed misleading by prosecutors might be too vague to constitute fraud, weakening the charges.

Despite closing the case, the judge refused to immediately dismiss bribery and conspiracy charges against other defendants, requesting further government explanation. US courts have limited power to prevent prosecutors from dropping cases, but Garaufis chose to scrutinize the decision closely.

This ruling formalizes the Justice Department's earlier move to end the criminal fraud case against Adani, Asia's richest man, who had pledged a $10 billion investment in the US shortly after Donald Trump's 2024 election. The decision followed a series of legal developments, including a settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and a $275 million payment by Adani Enterprises to resolve a separate Iran sanctions investigation. Adani and his family denied all wrongdoing and did not appear in US courts.

Adani welcomed the ruling on social media, expressing respect for the judicial process and reaffirming his commitment to fairness and the rule of law. The case had been a significant challenge for the conglomerate amid multiple fraud allegations over the past three years, including a critical report by Hindenburg Research, which has since ceased operations.