The Adani prosecution has become one of the most closely watched corruption cases in the country, and not because of the facts alleged in the indictment. It is now a contest over a narrower and more consequential question: when the Justice Department decides it no longer wants to pursue a criminal case, how much of an explanation does a federal court get to demand? On September 28, 2026, the Department asked the Second Circuit to settle that question in its favor, petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to dismiss the remaining charges. The petition, signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, deserves a careful look from every compliance professional, because the outcome will shape how much weight anyone should place on a change in enforcement posture.

The Indictment

In November 2024, prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York unsealed charges against Gautam Adani, the chairman of the Adani Group, and two executives of Adani Green Energy, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain. The government alleged that more than $250 million in payments were made or promised to Indian officials to secure solar supply contracts worth over $2 billion, and that the scheme was concealed from the American and international investors from whom the company raised capital. The charges against these three were conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud and securities fraud. They were not charged with FCPA violations.

The same indictment named five others: two former executives of Azure Power and three former employees of a Canadian institutional investor that controlled Azure. They were charged with conspiring to violate the FCPA, and with conspiring to obstruct grand jury, FBI, and SEC investigations, allegedly by agreeing to delete electronic materials, withhold information, and deny involvement. All of these are allegations. Every defendant is presumed innocent.

The Motion to Dismiss

On May 18, 2026, McCotter, then serving as principal associate deputy attorney general, moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. The motion’s stated rationale was brief: the Department had reviewed the case and decided, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to the charges against the individual defendants.

Press accounts connected the timing to meetings between Adani’s newly retained lawyers and Department officials, in which the possibility of a $10 billion investment in the United States and thousands of American jobs was reportedly raised. Adani has denied that any quid pro quo existed. The record also shows that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York rejected the investment idea in writing. Around the same time, two related matters closed: an SEC settlement with Adani and his nephew for $18 million, and a $275 million resolution by an Adani Group subsidiary of Iran sanctions allegations.

The Judge Asks for More

Rule 48(a) requires the government to obtain leave of court to dismiss an indictment. For decades, that requirement has been treated as close to a formality. Judge Nicholas Garaufis treated it as a real requirement. In June, he found the Department’s one-sentence rationale insufficient to permit any meaningful review and asked for a fuller explanation.

McCotter’s July response did not stop at the question asked. It argued that India had a stronger interest in addressing the conduct, that a U.S. prosecution risked diplomatic friction, that resources were better directed elsewhere, that there were no victims whose interests needed protection, and that the case did not fit the foreign bribery priorities set out in the Deputy Attorney General’s June 2025 memorandum that followed the FCPA enforcement pause. It also characterized the original indictment as politically motivated, and stated that the decision had not been based on any promise of investment.

That last point changed the case. By denying an agreement, the Department put the idea of an agreement on the record, and the judge responded by ordering Adani to submit an affidavit on whether any understanding existed. Adani said none did, while acknowledging that his lawyers had proposed the investment as part of a possible resolution. His counsel produced the email in which the U.S. Attorney, Joseph Nocella, rejected the proposal. The judge then sought Nocella’s own account. Nocella confirmed that McCotter, his supervisor, made the decision to seek dismissal, that Nocella did not draft McCotter’s letter, and that he had no reason to doubt that McCotter’s stated reasons were the real ones.

The August 10 Ruling

On August 10, in a 47-page opinion, Judge Garaufis dismissed the fraud charges against Adani, Sagar Adani, and Jaain. He accepted that some of the investor-facing anti-bribery language underlying those charges was arguably too generic to carry criminal liability. But he declined to dismiss two counts against the five remaining defendants, because the government had not given a sufficient reason.

The opinion was unusually pointed. The judge observed that the decision appeared to have been made largely in conversation with defense counsel, and seemingly without input from the agents and prosecutors who investigated the case or from the SEC. He described the diplomatic and resource concerns as hypothetical and unsupported by sworn evidence. And he rejected, as unsubstantiated, the suggestion that the indictment was a politically motivated filing, noting that no evidence had been offered to support it. He set a deadline for the Department to supply additional reasons for the remaining counts.

Two career prosecutors withdrew from the case after the motion was filed, and the motion was signed only by political appointees. There has also been reporting that one of the prosecutors was later fired. I have not been able to confirm the details of that report, and I flag it as unverified.

The Mandamus Petition

Rather than provide the additional explanation the district court requested, the Department filed its petition with the Second Circuit on September 28. On October 1, the court of appeals denied the Department’s request to expedite consideration. That order addressed only the schedule, and it signals nothing about the merits. I have not reviewed the petition itself, and my analysis below is based on public reporting and the procedural record.

Why the Petition Faces a Steep Climb

Mandamus is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner must show a clear and indisputable right to the relief and the absence of any other adequate means of obtaining it, and the court must be persuaded that the writ is appropriate. Several features of this case make that showing difficult.

The text of Rule 48(a) itself contemplates a judicial role. Whatever the limits of that role, and the courts have long described them as narrow, the rule would mean nothing if a court could not ask why the government wanted out. The Department’s strongest argument is separation of powers: charging decisions belong to the Executive. But the government did not decline to explain; it offered explanations, and the judge found them lacking. Asking an appellate court to order a judge to accept reasons that the judge considered insufficient, without offering better ones, is a hard petition to win.

The record also contains problems of the Department’s own making. A request to dismiss supported by one sentence invited questions. A response that volunteered a denial of any investment agreement turned a rumor into a fact in the case. And the absence of input from the people who built the case gave the judge a basis for concern that the decision-making process was not what a court expects to see.

None of this means the Department cannot prevail. Appellate courts take separation-of-powers arguments seriously, and there is real doctrinal support for deference to the Executive on whether to continue a prosecution. But even a ruling in the Department’s favor would not erase the factual record that has now been assembled.

What This Means for Compliance Programs

The most dangerous conclusion a company could draw from the Adani saga is that FCPA risk is fading. Three points suggest otherwise.

The Adani case has turned into a test of two principles that rarely collide: the Executive’s authority over whom to prosecute, and the public’s stake in confidence that abandoning a corruption case was based on reasons that can be stated and defended. The Second Circuit will decide how far a court may probe. Whatever it holds, the lesson for the compliance community is that the credibility of an enforcement system rests not only on the cases it brings but on whether its decisions to drop them can survive being explained in open court.

First, changes in the Department’s priorities do not end a case by themselves. Courts, the SEC, foreign authorities, and future administrations all have roles. Substantive FCPA bribery violations carry a five-year limitations period, and conspiracy and obstruction theories can extend exposure. A program dismantled today may have to answer for conduct years from now.

Second, enforcement has not disappeared. It has shifted across agencies and subject areas. In this very matter, parallel civil and sanctions resolutions were reached while the criminal case was being contested. The prosecutions that remain, and the investor-disclosure and obstruction theories that accompany bribery, are not dependent on any one memo.

Third, obstruction allegations travel independently. The charges against the five remaining defendants include allegations about deleting materials and misleading investigators. Whatever happens with the bribery theory, companies and executives should treat preservation, accuracy, and cooperation as non-negotiable.

For compliance officers, that suggests a practical checklist. Maintain third-party due diligence and books-and-records controls at the level your actual risk requires, not at the level the current enforcement mood suggests. Document the reasoning behind significant compliance and disclosure decisions, since someone with a different perspective may read it later. Keep investor-facing statements about your compliance program accurate and specific, a point on which the district court’s discussion of generic language cuts in both directions. Enforce document retention and legal hold practices. And if your organization is the subject of an inquiry, remember that a court may become a participant in how it ends.

The Bottom Line

The Adani case has turned into a test of two principles that rarely collide: the Executive’s authority over whom to prosecute, and the public’s stake in confidence that abandoning a corruption case was based on reasons that can be stated and defended. The Second Circuit will decide how far a court may probe. Whatever it holds, the lesson for the compliance community is that the credibility of an enforcement system rests not only on the cases it brings but on whether its decisions to drop them can survive being explained in open court.