New Delhi: The Trump administration’s decision to go easy on white-collar crime enforcement offers hope for the Adani Group in its fight against bribery and fraud charges, but it isn’t clear sailing for the conglomerate just yet, experts say. 

United States authorities filed parallel criminal and civil charges against billionaire Gautam Adani six months ago, accusing him of orchestrating a “massive bribery scheme” in India – allegations his company has dismissed as “baseless”.

When the indictment was unsealed, it not only led to the Adani Group’s shares tumbling, but also ignited a political firestorm in India, with the opposition accusing the Modi government of shielding Adani from scrutiny. 

Three months later, freshly sworn-in US President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending for 180 days the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) – a law that bars companies from bribing foreign officials to secure contracts.  

The case, involving a tycoon with ties to Modi, may have handed Trump – the most transactional US president in recent history –  a lever he could use amid the current push for a trade deal favourable to the US or for big ticket arms sales. While tariffs weren’t expected to become such a flashpoint, India has been eager to avoid high duties by reaching a trade deal. The Adani charges, perceived as a potential source of influence in Modi’s talks with Trump, add a layer of political complexity to the relationship.

The Wire spoke to six US law professors and attorneys, including some who’ve worked on FCPA cases within the Department of Justice (DoJ), to unpack the implications of Trump’s order.  

US legal experts weigh-in on Adani bribery case

The White House said that suspension Trump announced was meant to stop the law’s “abuse” in ways that hurt American interests and clashed with US foreign policy.  

But legal experts following the Adani case caution against reading this as a blanket reprieve, partly because the mining-to-media giant’s executives haven’t been charged under the FCPA.

Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani, former Adani Green Energy CEO Vneet Jaain, two former executives of Indian renewables firm Azure Power and three former officials of  Canadian pension fund Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) were accused of orchestrating over $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials between 2020 and 2024 to secure lucrative solar energy contracts. The projects were expected to generate more than $2 billion in profits. 

While Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Vneet Jaain were charged with wire and securities fraud, other defendants, including former Azure Power officials, were booked for conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

In parallel action by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the two Adanis were accused of violating various anti-fraud provisions of federal securities laws, while Cyril Cabanes, CDPQ’s former Asia Pacific Infra head and past member of board of director of Azure Power, faced FCPA charges. 

This is important because the FCPA enforcement pause will not affect the other charges being pursued by the DoJ or the SEC

 “Other charges might be affected by the executive order, but it only pauses the FCPA – it doesn’t touch enforcement of other US laws,” said Mike Koehler, a prominent FCPA scholar who teaches at Texas A&M University and other institutes. 

“Adani’s charges are linked to the FCPA, yes, but that doesn’t mean the case just vanishes.”

Washington and Lee University professor Karen Woody. Photo: Social media.

Washington and Lee University professor Karen Woody, an expert on securities law, described the case as a “tricky wrinkle” because of the way the fraud and bribery allegations are intertwined. 

“The basis of the allegation is that they have misled investors about certain payments or accounting issues,” she said. “While that allegation likely requires proof of the predicate bribery, it is a stand-alone charge that is not subject to the ‘pause.’ Because it is so linked with the FCPA allegations, it is possible the DoJ might abandon all of this entirely, but it technically could proceed. It certainly will be interesting to see what the DOJ does with this”.

Woody adds that Trump’s pause of FCPA enforcement also comes with practical issues, including a shifting of prosecutorial resources.

 “I cannot say for certain whether there has been a complete halt to prosecutorial efforts in this case, but resources and personnel related to the case likely have shifted. For example, Glenn Leon, one of the prosecutors on the case and the former Chief of the Fraud Section at Main Justice, has since been reassigned within the Department,” she said.

Ephraim “Fry” Wernick, a partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP and former federal prosecutor in the DOJ’s FCPA Unit, made a similar point about shifting resources, which would likely reduce the number of prosecutors available to take on new cases. 

“Adani is better positioned today to argue that his case be dismissed than he was months ago. His counsel would be well suited to take advantage of the shift in DOJ’s FCPA enforcement posture.”

Former federal prosecutor Ephraim (Fry) Wernick. Photo: Social media

That shift has already begun to show. On April 3, a federal judge granted the Justice Department’s motion to drop prosecution of two former executives at Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp, who had faced charges since 2019 for allegedly approving a $2 million bribe to Indian officials to secure a construction permit for a new office building in Tamil Nadu. It was the first FCPA case to be closed since President Trump ordered a temporary pause in enforcement of the anti-bribery law.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report on the Trump administration’s retreat from white-collar enforcement, Attorney General Pam Bondi is now refocusing prosecutorial priorities on drug cartels and transnational criminal networks.

In the same report, WSJ also noted that “lawyers for Indian billionaire Gautam Adani are asking the Justice Department to drop criminal charges tied to an alleged foreign-bribery scheme against him and other executives of his companies,” citing people familiar with the matter.

The Wire contacted both the Adani group and the DoJ to confirm whether there has been any discussions, but there has been no comment so far. 

Robert Fisher, a former federal prosecutor, said that such a move would be well-timed as the Adani case is likely undergoing an independent review. “That might actually be good news” for the Adanis “because there’s going to be a fresh set of eyes on this. With the FCPA charges, there’s a good chance those could potentially be dismissed through this new review.”

Former federal prosecutor Robert Fisher. Photo: Social media

Fisher, partner and practice lead at Nixon Peabody’s Government Investigations & White Collar Defense, added that the administration’s revised priorities had created space for defence lawyers to press for more favourable outcomes. “So I think there’s now a pathway for attorneys to advocate for their clients before this administration to try and get outcomes similar to what we saw with the Adams case or the Cognizant case – maybe a more favourable deal, a settlement, or even a dismissal, if that aligns with the administration’s goals,” he said.

But even as Adani’s legal team would seek to leverage this shift, Wernick cautioned against assuming the case is on its way out. “With the dismissal of charges against Cognizant executives on the eve of trial, there is some suggestion that FCPA charges against American executives are less likely to go forward, but the government may still be interested in pursuing cases against foreign nationals, as we have seen DoJ signal a willingness to bring other cases where foreign citizens are charged,” said Wernick.

Philip Urofsky, a well-known FCPA expert and a former federal prosecutor who had helped develop DoJ’s capacity to enforce foreign bribery laws, believes that the executive order likely won’t stop prosecutorial work entirely, but it does mean prosecutors will need to pause and re-evaluate cases using new guidelines. These include whether a case “unfairly” punishes US companies, contributes to a “level playing field,” or relates to drug cartels or transnational criminal organisations (TCO).

‘Trump’s executive order more about protecting American companies’

Urofsky also reiterated that the executive order is more about protecting American companies than foreign ones like Adani. “In my view, it is possible that an investigation of a non-US company, even if it does not involve cartels or TCOs, may survive the process because it lends itself to the president’s narrative that US companies have been taken advantage of by foreign companies that continue to pay bribes – whether that is true or not,” he noted.

While the Cognizant case has been framed by US media as a reflection of the new priority in the DoJ, it can’t be totally seen through that lens – and therefore it may not be a signal of how such cases will be treated. 

“The Cognizant case has been pending since 2019. There were many legal and factual deficiencies in it. I’m not saying the executive order played no role – it does encourage the DoJ to review existing FCPA cases to see whether they fit within proper enforcement priorities. So it’s not irrelevant, but dismissing that case solely through the lens of the executive order is not warranted,” said Koehler, who also runs a long-standing blog tracking FCPA issues.

Wernick also expressed scepticism about drawing direct parallels between the Cognizant case and Adani’s legal troubles. “It is hard to say. The Cognizant executives were Americans operating for a US company. Adani is a powerful Indian businessman. The same considerations for dismissal may not apply,” he said.

In recent weeks, the Cognizant outcome certainly appears to be the exception, not the rule. As pointed out by Koehler, in the two weeks since the dismissal, the DOJ has decided to proceed in three other FCPA cases. “So, it’s not like the executive order is making every single FCPA case disappear,” he said.

Even if the DoJ were to drop its charges, that wouldn’t necessarily close the matter permanently. 

Lucinda Low, a leading authority on the FCPA and former president of the American Society of International Law, pointed out that a future administration could reopen the case depending on how the statute of limitations is applied. “If it were to be dropped, its ability to be revived by a future administration would depend on whether the statute of limitations has run,” she said. “While this is five years for FCPA violations, it can be longer in cases brought under the conspiracy statute… It appears the FCPA charge is a conspiracy charge.”

The indictment states that the alleged offences occurred between 2020 and 2024.

Wernick echoed that view, warning that a short-term reprieve could still leave Adani exposed. “The FCPA has a long statute of limitations period – five to six years, which can be tolled for up to three years for foreign cases – and the government frequently argues that the offence is a continuing conspiracy,” he explained. “That means the limitations period doesn’t begin until the benefits from the alleged corruption cease.”

In such cases, he said, a mere case closure or declination by the DoJ wouldn’t stop a future administration from reviving the charges. “However, if Adani were to reach a resolution with the DoJ through a Non-Prosecution Agreement – as opposed to a declination – then it is possible that such a resolution could serve as a shield to preclude a future case from being brought both by a future US administration and from foreign authorities.”

However, a simple declination, he added, “would not do the trick.” Only a dismissal with prejudice would preclude future action in the US – though not necessarily abroad. “Adani would be well-served to have his counsel explore such a possibility with this government to protect himself,” Wernick advised

‘SEC case against Adani beyond Trump’s FCPA pause’

And beyond the DoJ’s criminal charges, the Adanis still face a separate civil case filed by the SEC – one that falls outside the scope of Trump’s enforcement pause.

Low noted that “the DoJ enforcement pause does not extend to the SEC and in any event would not cover anti-fraud securities law violations.” The SEC, she added, has yet to announce its enforcement posture under the Trump administration. “Even if it were to pause or dial back on FCPA enforcement generally, that would not necessarily affect this case, which has been brought as a securities fraud case”.

Fisher noted that the SEC is likely to wait for cues from the DOJ before making any moves. 

“The civil penalties the SEC is looking at aren’t jail time. They’re more like remedial measures or penalties, like being barred from participating in certain activities. Typically, the DoJ will take the lead. They’ll decide what to do with the criminal case, and then the SEC will make its decisions after that”.

In the Cognizant case, a separate case by the SEC against the two executives was temporarily closed by the judge in January 2024 pending the resolution of the related criminal case. A week after the criminal case was closed this month, the SEC and the defendants jointly asked the judge to reopen the civil case and stay it so they can try to reach a settlement.