Introduction
In November 2024, Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani were indicted by U.S. authorities on charges of paying bribes to secure power supply contracts in India and misleading U.S. investors during a $750 million bond sale by Adani Green Energy Ltd. . These allegations have not only impacted the Adani Group’s market value but have also raised significant questions about the enforcement of international anti-corruption laws and the influence of political considerations on legal proceedings.
The case brings to the forefront the complexities of enforcing the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) against foreign nationals and companies, especially when such enforcement intersects with geopolitical interests and domestic policy shifts. The Adani Group’s alleged actions, if proven, could constitute violations of both the FCPA and U.S. securities laws, highlighting the extraterritorial reach of American anti-corruption statutes.
“The enforcement of the FCPA against foreign entities underscores the United States’ commitment to combating global corruption, but it also necessitates careful navigation of international diplomatic relations and legal sovereignty.” — Professor Laura Dickinson, George Washington University Law School.
This article examines the legal frameworks governing the case, the historical context of the FCPA, the current status of legal proceedings, differing political perspectives, comparable historical cases, potential policy implications, and future considerations.
Legal and Historical Background
The Reach and Debate Over Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
A significant component of the Adani legal saga revolves around extraterritoriality — the ability of U.S. laws to apply to actions committed outside its borders. Under Section 78dd-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1), foreign issuers of securities listed in the U.S. can be held liable for FCPA violations, even if the bribe was paid outside the U.S. If a foreign company uses the U.S. financial system in any way — including wiring funds through American banks or issuing bonds to U.S. investors — it falls within the jurisdictional reach of U.S. regulators.
While widely supported in principle, critics argue that such extraterritorial reach often causes diplomatic tension and is sometimes seen as a form of “legal imperialism.” Some foreign governments have pushed back on this practice, especially when they perceive investigations as politically motivated or economically strategic.
“There’s a fine line between global oversight and jurisdictional overreach. The U.S. risks undermining international cooperation if it appears to be using its legal system to police the world selectively.” — Professor Julian Ku, Hofstra University School of Law.
Notably, nations such as China and India have criticized U.S. extraterritorial enforcement when it conflicts with their domestic investigations or lacks coordination with their national agencies. The Adani indictment may once again prompt these nations to demand greater transparency and collaboration in transnational criminal matters.
India’s Legal Framework and Its Interaction with the FCPA
Although India has anti-corruption statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act (1988) and the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013), enforcement remains inconsistent. Cross-border enforcement, especially where influential political or business interests are involved, is rare.
According to Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, India ranked 93 out of 180 countries, reflecting persistent governance challenges. The Adani case — if substantiated — underscores a broader pattern in emerging economies where private wealth can sometimes wield disproportionate influence over public institutions.
As noted by legal analyst Anuradha Bhasin of the Centre for Legal Policy Research in New Delhi, “The disconnect between domestic accountability and international enforcement is a reflection of weak regulatory institutions, which allows cases like Adani’s to become international controversies rather than domestic reckonings.”
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
Indictments and Allegations
In November 2024, U.S. authorities indicted Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and other executives for allegedly paying $265 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure power contracts and for misleading U.S. investors during a $750 million bond sale. The charges include violations of the FCPA and securities fraud.
Legal Proceedings
The criminal and civil cases have been consolidated and are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York. The consolidation aims to streamline proceedings and ensure consistency in judicial decisions.
Independent Review by Adani Group
In response to the indictments, Adani Green Energy Ltd. commissioned an independent review, which reportedly found no irregularities or non-compliance related to the U.S. allegations. Despite this internal review, U.S. authorities continue to pursue legal action.
Political Engagement
Reports indicate that representatives of Gautam Adani have met with officials from President Donald Trump’s administration to seek dismissal of the charges, arguing that the prosecution does not align with the administration’s policy priorities.
Viewpoints and Commentary
The Role of the Media and Public Trust
Beyond legal circles, the Adani case has captivated global media and reshaped public discourse around corruption and accountability. In India, where Adani is seen both as a symbol of national entrepreneurship and as a politically connected oligarch, public opinion is deeply divided.
Indian media outlets like The Wire and Scroll.in have framed the case as a test of the government’s resolve to hold powerful businessmen accountable. In contrast, others, such as The Economic Times, have questioned the timing and intent behind the U.S. prosecution, especially in light of upcoming elections in both the U.S. and India.
In the U.S., the story has raised concerns about double standards. Critics point out that several major American firms with foreign corruption issues have avoided criminal liability through deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) or non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), mechanisms often unavailable to foreign companies. According to a 2023 report from the Brennan Center for Justice, over 80% of FCPA enforcement cases against non-U.S. firms ended in fines without meaningful prosecution of executives.
“Accountability shouldn’t be a matter of nationality. If corporate leaders can buy their way out of legal jeopardy, we aren’t enforcing laws — we’re monetizing them.” — Shalini Das, Senior Researcher at Transparency International U.S.
Comparable or Historical Cases
Siemens AG
As previously mentioned, Siemens AG’s 2008 settlement highlighted the U.S. government’s commitment to enforcing the FCPA against foreign entities. The case involved extensive bribery across multiple countries and resulted in one of the largest corporate fines in history.
Walmart Inc.
In 2019, Walmart agreed to pay $282 million to settle FCPA violations related to its operations in Brazil, China, India, and Mexico. The case underscored the importance of robust compliance programs and internal controls.
Odebrecht S.A.
The Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht S.A. was implicated in a massive corruption scandal, leading to a $3.5 billion settlement with U.S., Brazilian, and Swiss authorities in 2016. The case demonstrated the effectiveness of international cooperation in combating corruption.
“These cases illustrate that no company, regardless of size or nationality, is beyond the reach of anti-corruption enforcement when their actions impact U.S. markets.” — Professor Ellen Podgor, Stetson University College of Law.
Policy Implications and Forecasting (Expanded)
Legislative and Institutional Responses
The Adani case may prompt both legislative and administrative reassessments of how FCPA and related securities laws are enforced. Lawmakers across the political spectrum have already begun calling for hearings into whether such prosecutions should be insulated from political interference, especially given reports that Trump administration officials met with Adani representatives.
Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) has proposed a bill to create an “Office of Foreign Corruption Oversight” within the Department of Justice, tasked with tracking high-profile foreign prosecutions and reporting any executive branch contacts with targets of investigation.
Meanwhile, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has suggested a need for “FCPA reciprocity agreements” that would encourage bilateral legal cooperation before unilateral prosecution. As he explained during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing in March 2025, “Foreign bribery is real, but so is legal fairness. We shouldn’t weaponize our courts without giving partner nations a voice.”
Implications for U.S.–India Relations
Strategically, the U.S.–India relationship is at a critical juncture. Both nations seek to deepen military, trade, and technological cooperation amid rising Chinese influence. The prosecution of a business leader close to India’s ruling party could be viewed by Delhi as undermining mutual trust.
On the other hand, proponents argue that adherence to the rule of law — even when politically inconvenient — enhances U.S. soft power and proves the strength of its institutions.
In a recent op-ed, Ashley Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote: “While India will resist any perceived intrusion, it must also acknowledge that its international credibility will depend on how it handles corruption among its elite.”
CONCLUSION
The legal proceedings against Gautam Adani and his associates spotlight the difficult balance between law and diplomacy, sovereignty and accountability, and politics and justice. The FCPA, while a powerful instrument of transnational enforcement, must be wielded with transparency, fairness, and collaboration.
As the U.S. courts weigh the charges, and as political players attempt to influence outcomes, the world watches for signs of either judicial integrity or institutional compromise. In India, the case may add momentum to calls for stronger domestic enforcement mechanisms. In the U.S., it underscores the need to reaffirm that justice must remain independent of politics — both foreign and domestic.
“The Adani case is more than a corruption indictment. It is a referendum on the credibility of legal institutions in a globalized world, where financial borders are porous, but ethical standards must be firm.” — Professor Michael Glennon, Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Future Consideration: Should the United States and other major economies institutionalize multilateral anti-corruption courts to adjudicate such transnational cases, thereby balancing national sovereignty with global accountability?
For Further Reading:
- “Adani aides meet Trump team to push for end to U.S. bribery case” – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/adani-reps-meet-trump-officials-push-end-us-bribery-cases-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-05-05/ - “Adani Green says independent review on US indictment found no irregularities” – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-adani-green-says-independent-review-us-indictment-found-no-irregularities-2025-04-28/ - “Donald Trump halts US enforcement of law banning overseas bribes. What does it mean for Gautam Adani case?” – Hindustan Times
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/donald-trump-eases-enforcement-of-law-banning-overseas-bribes-what-does-it-mean-for-gautam-adani-case-101739256083001.html - “Billionaire Gautam Adani charged in US over alleged $250m bribery plot” – The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/20/gautam-adani-charged-alleged-bribes - “Trump’s big breather for Gautam Adani; US pauses enforcement of foreign bribery law” – Financial Express
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/industry-trumps-big-breather-for-gautam-adani-pauses-enforcement-of-foreign-bribery-law-3746127/