Adani indictment case: U.S. SEC updates court on efforts to serve legal documents

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a status update with a federal court in New York, detailing its ongoing efforts to serve legal documents to billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar in connection with a civil securities case filed last year.

In a June 27 letter submitted to Magistrate Judge James R. Cho of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), the SEC said it is continuing to pursue formal service of the summons and complaint under the provisions of the Hague Service Convention.

The defendants, who are based in India, are yet to be officially served.

U.S. SEC has to serve the summons to Adani Group founder and chairman Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar in the alleged $265 million payoffs to win lucrative renewable power supply contracts through proper diplomatic channels, as it has no jurisdiction to summon a foreign national directly.

The SEC originally filed the complaint on November 20, 2024, alleging that two violated U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements related to a September 2021 bond offering by Adani Green Energy Limited.

According to the SEC, Rule 4 (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service in foreign jurisdictions and permits the use of international treaties, such as the Hague Convention. The rule does not impose a specific time limit for service, provided reasonable efforts are being made.

The Court has asked the SEC to provide a further update by August 11, 2025.

The “defendants are located in India, and the SEC’s efforts to serve them are ongoing, including a request for assistance from Indian authorities to effect service under the Hague Service Convention for Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters”, the SEC told the Court.

SEC said it had previously requested assistance from India’s Ministry of Law and Justice in serving the summons and complaint on Adani in India.

“The SEC also sent Notices of Lawsuit and Requests for Waiver of Service of Summons, including copies of the complaint, directly to defendants and their counsel,” it said.

“The SEC has corresponded with the India MoLJ concerning the efforts of the relevant Indian judicial authorities to serve the Summons and Complaints on Defendants, but the SEC understands that those authorities have not yet effected service,” it added.

Gautam Adani (63) and seven other defendants, including his nephew Sagar, who is director at the group’s renewable energy unit Adani Green Energy Limited, allegedly agreed to pay about $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials between approximately 2020 and 2024 to obtain lucrative solar energy supply contracts on terms that are expected to yield $2 billion of profit over 20 years, according to an indictment unsealed in a New York court in November last year.

Separate from the indictment brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. SEC has also charged the two and Cyril Cabanes, an executive of Azure Power Global, for “conduct arising out of a massive bribery scheme”.

The ports-to-energy conglomerate has denied the allegations and said it will seek all possible legal resources.

“The Adani Group has always upheld and is steadfastly committed to maintaining the highest standards of governance, transparency and regulatory compliance across all jurisdictions of its operations. We assure our stakeholders, partners and employees that we are a law-abiding organisation fully compliant with all laws,” they said.

An indictment in the U.S. is basically a formal written allegation originating with a prosecutor and issued by a grand jury against a party charged with a crime. A person indicted is given formal notice to reply.

That person or persons can then hire a defence lawyer to defend. Prosecutors said the investigation started in 2022 and found the inquiry obstructed.

They allege that the Adani Group raised $2 billion in loans and bonds, including from U.S. firms, on the backs of false and misleading statements related to the firm’s anti-bribery practices and policies, as well as reports of the bribery probe.