US DoJ defends dropping Adani case; expert sees dismissal as certain

Legal experts weigh in on the US Department of Justice's decision to dismiss the bribery case against Gautam Adani, stating the DoJ's strong reply leaves the New York judge with little option but to rule in its favour and dismiss the case.

DoJ's Strong Reply on Adani Case

With the US Department of Justice defending its decision to seek the dismissal of the alleged bribery case against Gautam Adani and others, legal experts have weighed in to say that the reply is sufficient and raises questions on the quality of evidence presented to bring the case. Jim Walden, Partner at Walden Haran Williams LLP said that the Judge of the Eastern District Court of New York was now left with very little option except to rule in favour of the DoJ.

"The response of the DOJ was strong. It is not unusual that the DOJ tries to provide clarity so that the judge understands the basis for it, particularly when there have been allegations of partial treatment... Now the judge's responsibility is clear; their only possible decision is dismissal here and that is clearly the finish line here," he said "Dismissal is the only finish line here. The court is of limited jurisdiction, especially with an issue like this. He has some power of oversight, but he cannot veto the prosecutors. So I expect that he's going to dismiss this week,' he added.

'A Jurisdictional Theatre'

The US Department of Justice in its reply said that forcing prosecutors to spell out their reasoning in detail could undermine constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions. Prosecutors say the alleged case took place in India and it was not appropriate for US prosecutors to get into it.

"The US subjected one of its allies to 2 years of scrutiny, where there were Euro investor losses, and Indian agencies who are fully capable of looking into it in an ethical way, found no misconduct... There is a clear case law in the US that American justice should not be pursuing foreign transgressions, real or perceived. For me, this was a jurisdictional theatre rather than a serious criminal case and I hope this stands as a lesson and a reminder that American courts are courts of limited jurisdiction... We should be respecting the criminal justice system of the entire world, particularly our allies," Jim Walden said.

"One of the things that I think makes American justice extraordinary is the importance that we've always placed on making sure that people who are accused of serious crimes have due process of law. And I'm glad that the defendants in this case got due process of law," he added.

Weak Case and Evidentiary Problems

The US DoJ in its reply had argued that the case was weak due to evidentiary problems. It further said that most of the alleged evidence was based in India making US prosecution difficult.

"Because somebody had misguided priorities and really didn't carefully look at all of the things that I've focused on before. There were no losses. You know, there was no jurisdiction in the United States. No American citizens hurt. And the Indian authorities are sophisticated and capable and can carry out these investigations on their own. So I hope whether it's a Republican or Democratic administration in the future, if they think about doing something like this, they'll think again," Walden said.

The case against Gautam Adani and others had alleged a bribery scheme linked to solar power contracts in India which further allegedly misled US investors. In May this year the US DoJ had moved to dismiss these charges following which the US Court of the Eastern District of New York has sought a reply from the DoJ. With that reply cementing the US DoJ's position, legal experts argue that teh the Judge in all likelihood would back the DoJ stand. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)