Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Mahesh Jethmalani have provided a detailed critique of the recent charges brought by a US court against Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, and others. These charges allege that the Adani Group engaged in bribery and conspiracy to secure solar power contracts in India, concealing these activities from US banks and investors. However, the lawyers underscored significant gaps in the indictment and questioned its credibility and timing.
Mukul Rohatgi emphasized that neither Gautam Adani nor Sagar Adani has been charged under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law designed to combat bribery and corruption, nor with obstruction of justice. Instead, the indictment focuses on securities and wire fraud. Rohatgi explained that the accusations lack key details essential for any robust legal proceeding. For instance, while the charges suggest that the Adani Group bribed Indian entities to secure solar power contracts, the indictment fails to identify who was allegedly bribed, the methods used, or the government departments involved. He stated that such omissions significantly undermine the allegations, as a credible chargesheet must present concrete evidence and specifics.
The US prosecutors allege that between 2020 and 2024, the Adani Group conspired to offer ₹2,029 crore in bribes to Indian state officials to secure solar power projects. This information, they claim, was concealed from American financial institutions that helped fund these projects. However, Rohatgi pointed out that the charges rely heavily on the narrative of intent rather than actual acts of bribery. He further stated that the absence of specific details in the indictment makes it challenging to take the allegations at face value.
Mahesh Jethmalani echoed these concerns, asserting that the indictment does not accuse the Adanis of directly engaging in bribery but instead outlines a "conspiracy to bribe." He described the case as revolving around bond issuance by Adani Green Energy, alleging that bondholders were not informed of potential legal violations in India. Jethmalani argued that the focus on intent rather than tangible actions reflects a weak case and raises doubts about the motivations behind the charges. He also questioned the timing of the indictment, which coincides with the winter session of the Indian Parliament, suggesting the possibility of external influences or political motivations.
The senior lawyer criticized the opposition's calls for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe, dismissing them as politically driven and lacking substantive evidence. He argued that the Congress Party and other Opposition members have failed to provide any credible proof against the Adani Group, making their demands premature and unwarranted. Jethmalani also highlighted that even the US court's charges acknowledge no direct bribery, focusing instead on alleged intent and conspiracy, which he described as speculative at best.
Adani Green Energy issued a statement refuting the allegations, clarifying that neither Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, nor senior executive Vineet Jaain face charges of bribery or foreign corruption. Instead, they are accused of securities and wire fraud. The company reiterated its commitment to legal recourse in the US and expressed confidence that the charges would be disproven.
The controversy has sparked significant political and public discourse in India, with the Opposition seizing the opportunity to question the Adani Group's business practices and its alleged links to the government. However, the Adani Group's defense, supported by prominent legal experts, has focused on exposing the lack of evidence and the speculative nature of the accusations.
The case has also drawn international attention, with its implications for corporate governance and transparency. As the Adani Group prepares to mount a robust legal defense in the US, the absence of specific evidence and the timing of the charges remain central to the debate. The allegations, if proven unfounded, could bolster the Adani Group's reputation, but if substantiated, they may have significant repercussions for one of India's largest business conglomerates. For now, the focus remains on the legal proceedings and their potential to clarify the veracity of the claims made by US prosecutors.
