Advocate Vijay Aggarwal has given a clear and logical view on the US DOJ’s decision to drop the criminal case against Gautam Adani.
He pointed out that, in the DOJ’s own assessment, there was no substantive case from the beginning. The evidence turned out to be much weaker than initially expected, and more importantly, there was no demonstrable loss to investors. In such situations, the very foundation of the prosecution becomes questionable.
He further noted that courts do not initiate or continue prosecutions on their own. It is the prosecution that decides whether to proceed or not. When the DOJ itself concludes that continuing the case is not justified due to lack of evidence and absence of loss, dismissal becomes the natural and correct outcome.
This reinforces that the decision to drop the case is based on legal merit rather than external factors.
The US DOJ’s detailed filing on July 4–5 urging permanent dismissal of the criminal case against Gautam Adani is structurally positive for Adani Group stocks.
1) Removes a major overhang that had erased up to $55 billion in market cap when the indictment was filed in Nov 2024.
2) DOJ’s own detailed reasoning (jurisdiction issues, no US investor losses, weak evidence, change in priorities) adds credibility and reduces the chance of prolonged legal uncertainty.
3) This follows the earlier May 2026 relief (DOJ signal + SEC settlement), after which Adani Group stocks had already seen sharp rallies (some counters up 5%+ in a single day, group recovering ~$150 billion in value over time).
5) Adani Enterprises recently completed a large Rs.15,000 crore QIP, showing strong institutional appetite even before this latest development.
Overall, the removal of this long-standing legal overhang should support sentiment and provide further stability to Adani Group stocks going forward.
Very Important Update
Raian N. Karanjawala has given one of the clearest assessments yet on the latest development in the US DOJ matter.
He rightly highlighted that the Department of Justice’s initial response was limited to a single line, stating it did not wish to expend further resources. After US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, on June 26, directed the DOJ to provide proper reasoning, the Department filed a detailed 10-page response on July 4. This filing went well beyond procedure and directly addressed the merits, stating that the case “should never have been brought in the first place,” that there were no investor losses, and that the original indictment faced significant evidentiary and jurisdictional challenges.
This shift from a one-line reply to a comprehensive, strongly worded submission is notable. In the US system, Rule 48(a) motions to dismiss are relatively uncommon, and when filed, they are usually brief.
A detailed, transparent response of this nature, especially one that critiques the strength of its own earlier case, reflects a deliberate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Karanjawala correctly noted that ultimately, it is the merits of the case that matter most and the DOJ has now placed those merits on record before the court.
This carries weight. Following the November 20, 2024 indictment, the Adani Group had witnessed an erosion of nearly $55 billion in market capitalisation within days, driven largely by uncertainty and negative sentiment. The detailed July 4 filing, combined with the expectation that the court may take a final view around July 13, further reduces this overhang.
Markets generally respond positively to structured resolution of long-standing legal risks, particularly when the prosecuting agency itself acknowledges fundamental weaknesses in the case.
The focus is gradually shifting from regulatory overhang to business fundamentals. Every incremental step that brings legal clarity helps in reassessing risk and valuation in a more objective manner.
Very important words from senior advocate Harish Salve on the US DOJ’s decision to drop the criminal case against Gautam Adani.
Harish Ji has rightly pointed out that the detailed 10-page filing makes it clear the case “should never have been brought” and was essentially a “name-and-shame” exercise unsealed in the final days of the previous US administration, with little prospect of an actual trial.
In the US system, the decision to prosecute or drop a case lies with the executive (DOJ). The judiciary reviews it but does not force prosecutions. He contrasts this with certain instances in India where courts have sometimes pushed for investigations or prosecutions, blurring these lines.
This clarity from the DOJ itself that there was no real evidence strong enough to sustain the case and no losses to US investors is significant.
He also highlights a critical point that markets and investors often overlook: the irreversible damage to reputation caused by weak or politically motivated cases. He draws parallels with high-profile Indian cases like 2G and Jain Hawala, where eventual acquittals came only after massive reputational and sectoral damage had already been done.
The same principle applies here. The initial indictment had led to a sharp erosion of nearly $55 billion in Adani Group market capitalisation in late 2024.
This development further reduces a long-standing overhang. When even the prosecuting agency admits the case lacked merit and was pursued in a manner that left little room for actual adjudication, it sends a clear signal.
For Indian companies facing extraterritorial regulatory actions, this kind of closure especially on the merits rather than just procedure can gradually improve investor confidence and reduce risk premiums over time.
This episode was part of a broader anti-India narrative in certain sections of the US establishment and media is also worth noting. The strong language in the DOJ filing is typical of American legal discourse and should be read in that context rather than as an attack on the incoming administration.
Seth DuCharme’s comments carry significant weight. As the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and currently Chair of Bracewell’s International Government Enforcement & Investigations practice, he has direct experience of how the Department of Justice operates, including filing Rule 48 motions to dismiss cases.
What makes his observations particularly important is his view that the DOJ’s 10-page response is unusual both in length and transparency. He noted that such motions are typically much shorter and provide far less explanation.
According to DuCharme, the most notable aspect is the DOJ’s decision to provide greater public transparency while exercising prosecutorial discretion, including explaining the change in enforcement priorities between the two administrations.
He also observed that the original indictment had elements of a “name and shame” exercise, given the low probability of the defendants ever appearing for trial. He further said that when prosecutors choose to dismiss a case after reassessing it, doing so can strengthen public confidence in the justice system.
These observations provide additional context in the Adani US legal matter. Coming from a former senior DOJ official with firsthand experience, they offer perspective on how the current DOJ filing may be viewed from within the US enforcement system.
For market participants, such developments may be relevant when assessing the evolving legal position, alongside the official court filings, judicial proceedings, and company disclosures.
Senior advocate Raian N. Karanjawala has correctly highlighted the procedural gap in the initial US DOJ approach on the Adani case.
The Department had earlier given only a one-line reason for dropping the charges. After US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis sought detailed justification on June 26, the DOJ filed a comprehensive 10-page response on July 4. This filing explains why the case lacked sufficient basis, including no investor losses and weak jurisdictional grounds.
This step provides incremental clarity on the path to resolution. The Adani Group had seen a sharp erosion of nearly $55 billion in market capitalisation in the days following the November 2024 indictment. As the legal process moves towards structured closure, with the next hearing scheduled around July 13, it could support near-term sentiment in Adani Group stocks today. Any positive reaction, however, will also depend on broader market flows and sector performance.
Investors should track price action and volumes in the coming sessions while considering overall fundamentals. This is not investment advice.
The absolute desperation of the anti-Adani ecosystem is reaching peak comedy right now. Top US Legal Expert Seth Levine (Partner, Levine Lee LLP) just completely broke down the DoJ's massive, humiliating retreat.
This isn't just a basic withdrawal; it’s a total legal surrender that exposes severe American high-handedness.
Let’s understand the gravity of what just went down. Levine explicitly notes that the DoJ is taking the massive step of dismissing an indictmen something "no administration does lightly." They didn't just ask to drop it; they filed a granular, detailed submission packed with legal, policy, and procedural reasons to bury this case for good.
Why the sudden panic from the US government? Because their original overreach was completely unsustainable. To protect the Adani Group from future American legal games, the DoJ is moving to dismiss the case "with prejudice." As Levine perfectly puts it, this guarantees the government cannot strategically re-charge or "victimize" the defendant again.
For nearly two years, detractors pretended a flawed US indictment was absolute gospel truth.
Now, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal has completely demolished their narrative, exposing the sheer emptiness and intrusive overreach of this entire US-manufactured drama.
Aggarwal cut straight through the noise, pointing out that the DoJ’s own assessment shows there was absolutely "no substantive case to begin with." The evidence was exponentially weaker than initially hyped, and the entire foundation of the prosecution was fundamentally broken from day one.
Most importantly, THERE WAS NO LOSS.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve has delivered one of the most direct and hard-hitting breakdowns of the Adani US case yet.
He has EXPOSED how the previous American administration ran a sustained anti-India narrative, using the Adani Group as a convenient economic target to pressure India.
The DOJ’s own 10-page filing has now validated this completely.
It admitted that the original indictment was a “name and shame” exercise, unsealed in the final days of the prior administration “without any realistic prospect of a trial ever occurring.”
The Department itself stated that the case “should never have been brought in the first place.”