A proposal from lawyers for Indian billionaire Gautam Adani has left a veteran former federal prosecutor stunned: Invest $10 billion in the United States—and resolve the criminal fraud case standing in the way.
Andrew Weissmann, who spent two decades at the Justice Department and formerly led its fraud section, called the reported offer “unthinkable” during an episode of “Illegal News.” He was particularly astonished that experienced defense lawyers would put such an extraordinary proposition in writing.
“It’s just unthinkable,” Weissmann said. “Are you on crack? Like, what the hell happened?”
His reaction followed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis that disclosed details of communications between Adani’s defense team and federal prosecutors.
Adani and several other defendants were indicted in the Eastern District of New York in 2024 on charges involving alleged investor fraud and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. An indictment contains allegations, not proof of guilt, and the defendants remain entitled to the presumption of innocence.
According to the judge’s ruling, Adani’s attorneys proposed resolving the prosecution in connection with a promised $10 billion investment in the United States.
Follow @allchronologyBrooklyn U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella rejected that approach in an email quoted by the court.
For Weissmann, the mere fact that such a proposal was made marked a dramatic departure from normal Justice Department practice.
He described seasoned attorneys entering the DOJ and effectively saying, “Dismiss these cases, and then we will invest $10 billion.” In decades of handling major corporate investigations, Weissmann said, he had never encountered anything comparable.
“That is never said under any administration,” he declared.
The chronology has intensified scrutiny of the case.
According to Weissmann’s account, Adani publicly praised Donald Trump one day after Trump won the election. Approximately a week later, the billionaire announced plans to invest $10 billion in the United States and create thousands of jobs.
Adani’s attorneys subsequently pointed federal prosecutors toward that same investment pledge, reportedly presenting the criminal prosecution as an obstacle to moving forward.
Follow @allchronologyThe defense proposal does not establish that Trump or any Justice Department official accepted an improper bargain. Nor does the available information prove that the investment promise caused the department’s later attempt to abandon parts of the case.
But Weissmann argued that the overlapping legal, financial and political circumstances create an appearance so troubling that the entire episode “stinks to high heaven.”
Concerns deepened when career prosecutors appeared to distance themselves from the decision to seek dismissal.
Weissmann highlighted Nocella’s statement that abandoning the case was “not my decision.” He also noted that two Justice Department fraud-section attorneys withdrew from the prosecution.
Such departures do not independently prove misconduct. But combined with the rejected investment proposal and the government’s subsequent effort to drop charges, they raise serious questions about who ordered the change and why.
Adani’s legal team has also drawn attention because it includes lawyers from the powerful firm Sullivan & Cromwell. Among them is Robert Giuffra Jr., who has separately represented Trump in personal legal matters.
Follow @allchronologyThat connection does not demonstrate that Trump intervened or that Giuffra acted improperly. Nevertheless, it adds another politically sensitive layer to a case already clouded by questions about money, influence and prosecutorial independence.
Judge Garaufis did not simply accept the government’s request and close the matter.
Although he dismissed some charges, he ordered the Justice Department to explain why it wanted to abandon others. Weissmann described that intervention as “a very brave decision,” noting that courts traditionally grant prosecutors broad authority when they seek to dismiss criminal charges.
The judge also identified an apparent contradiction within the administration’s own stated policy.
According to Weissmann, the allegations in Adani’s indictment aligned with Attorney General Todd Blanche’s memorandum outlining the kinds of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases the Justice Department should pursue. That makes the attempt to retreat from the prosecution more difficult to explain as a straightforward application of the administration’s enforcement priorities.
If the case fits the attorney general’s own criteria, why is the department seeking to abandon it?
And if career prosecutors were not responsible for that choice, who was?
The controversy touches a foundational principle of the American justice system: Criminal prosecutions are supposed to depend on evidence and law—not a defendant’s wealth, political connections or ability to promise enormous economic benefits.
Corporate defendants regularly negotiate with prosecutors. They may pay fines, accept monitoring, cooperate with investigators or agree to compliance reforms. But Weissmann distinguished those conventional resolutions from an offer involving an unrelated investment that could generate political and economic benefits for the administration seeking dismissal.
The danger, critics argue, is not limited to this single prosecution.
If wealthy defendants can treat investments as leverage in criminal cases, justice risks becoming another commodity—one priced beyond the reach of ordinary Americans.
Follow @allchronologyNo final judicial determination has established that such a corrupt exchange occurred. Adani has not been convicted, and Weissmann’s explosive characterization represents his legal and political assessment rather than a proven court finding.
But the unanswered questions are now written into the public record.
A billionaire promised $10 billion. His lawyers invoked that pledge while seeking an end to his prosecution. Career officials reportedly resisted or withdrew. And the Justice Department must now explain its retreat to a federal judge.
“The corruption is staggering,” Weissmann concluded.
Whether the court ultimately agrees remains uncertain. But the question hanging over the case could hardly be more damaging:
Was the Justice Department enforcing the law—or negotiating its price?
