Adani bribery charges: Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani have been reportedly summoned to explain their stand on the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegation of paying $265 million (Rs 2,200 crore) in bribes to secure lucrative solar power contracts. Summons have been sent to Adani’s Shantivan Farm residence in Ahmedabad and his nephew Sagar’s Bodakdev residence in the same city for a reply to SEC within 21 days, PTI News reported on Saturday.
“Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)…you must serve on the plaintiff (SEC) an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” said a November 21 notice sent through the New York Eastern District Court.
“If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court,” it added.
According to a recent indictment unsealed in a New York court, Gautam Adani, aged 62, along with seven other defendants, including his nephew Sagar who serves as a director at Adani Green Energy Ltd, allegedly conspired to pay roughly USD 265 million in bribes to Indian government officials from around 2020 to 2024. The goal of these bribes was to secure lucrative solar energy supply contracts that were expected to generate approximately USD 2 billion in profits over a span of 20 years.
The Adani Group has refuted the allegations as unfounded and has pledged to explore all available legal options. In addition to the indictment issued by the US Department of Justice, the US SEC has filed charges against the two individuals and Cyril Cabanes, an executive of Azure Power Global, for their involvement in a significant bribery scheme.
The prosecution claims that the investigation, which commenced in 2022, uncovered instances of obstruction. Furthermore, it is alleged that the Adani Group secured loans and bonds totaling USD 2 billion, including from American companies, based on deceptive information regarding the company’s anti-bribery policies and practices. Reports of a bribery investigation also contributed to the misleading conduct.
Â