Jurisdictional complexities in the allegations against Gautam Adani 

The recent allegations of bribery involving Mr Gautam Adani reportedly tied to acts occurring in India and involving Indian officials, underscore complex jurisdictional challenges. These allegations primarily fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), which mandates that investigations be conducted by Indian authorities like the anticorruption branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Consequently, trial if any, should be held in courts having competent jurisdiction in India.

The application of US laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), adds an intricate layer to the issue. The FCPA governs acts of bribery by entities with substantial U.S. ties, such as the use of U.S. financial systems or solicitation of funds from American investors. Allegations against Mr. Adani and his companies reportedly include violations of anti-bribery provisions and securities laws, tied to claims of misleading U.S. investors during bond offerings. While this establishes a potential U.S. jurisdictional basis, it must withstand scrutiny under international legal principles and respect India’s sovereignty.

India and the US, as signatories to mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), are expected to cooperate in these investigations to ensure that evidence adheres to international standards. The defence could argue the absence of a direct U.S. nexus to the alleged acts, emphasizing compliance with Indian anti-corruption laws. Additionally, the credibility and admissibility of evidence collected solely by U.S. authorities may face challenges.

The recent issuance of U.S. arrest warrants against Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani intensifies the legal complications. These warrants could lead to immediate repercussions, including restrictions on international travel, extradition risks, and challenges to the group’s global operations. If the warrants escalate to INTERPOL red notices, law enforcement worldwide would be alerted, further complicating the Adani family’s mobility and business activities. However, extradition from India remains unlikely unless Indian authorities substantiate the allegations under domestic law and agree to cooperate.

Domestically, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is conducting parallel investigations into potential violations of Indian disclosure norms. SEBI’s findings could impact both the Adani Group’s domestic standing and its global compliance reputation.

The possibility of a trial in absentia in the US raises significant due process concerns. While U.S. courts allow such trials under strict conditions when the accused is voluntarily absent, the process is rare and must ensure full procedural safeguards. 

I had the opportunity to represent an accused in a trial in absentia in Athens, Greece, in 2015. The accused, residing in India, had red corner notice against him and voluntarily chose not to appear, but contest the trial in the court of law. 
Fortunately, the Greek government had in 2014 itself, passed specific legislation permitting trials in absentia under stringent conditions. Following a detailed trial, we secured an acquittal, which was subsequently upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Greece. This underscores that trials in absentia can only succeed when full participation is ensured through legal representation and adherence to due process.

The author is a senior advocate specialising in dealing with cases of anti-money laundering and anti-corruption law in India. He also has experience in handling similar cases abroad.