A Closer Look At Judge Garaufis’s Decision Not To Dismiss The FCPA Charges
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
This recent post highlighted how Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss various non-FCPA fraud charges against certain defendants.
However, Judge Garaufis denied – for the moment – the motion to dismiss FCPA and obstruction charges against certain other defendants.
Regarding the “FCPA Charges against Non-Appearing Defendants,” Judge Garaufis wrote:
Judge Dismisses Fraud Charges Against Adanis – FCPA Charges Against Other Defendants Remain
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
Gautam Adani (a citizen of India and founder of the Adani Group which includes numerous portfolio companies including Adani Green Energy – and Indian energy company) was charged with securities fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud conspiracy.
Sagar Adani (a citizen of India and Gautam Adani’s nephew and Executive Director of Adani Green’s Board of Directors) was charged with securities fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud conspiracy.
Flawed Esquenazi Decision Continues To Impact FCPA Enforcement
In 2014, the 11th Circuit released its decision in U.S. v. Esquenazi.
The case was, and remains, the only appellate court decision in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act history to substantively address the FCPA’s “foreign official” element.
In pertinent part the court stated:
“An ‘instrumentality’ under … the FCPA is an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that performs a function the controlling government treats as its own. Certainly, what constitutes control and what constitutes a function the government treats as its own are fact-bound questions. It would be unwise and likely impossible to exhaustively answer them in the abstract. Because we only have this case before us, we do not purport to list all of the factors that might prove relevant to deciding whether an entity is an instrumentality of a foreign government. For today, we provide a list of some factors that may be relevant to deciding the issue.
DOJ Still Unsure Of Appeal In Rovirosa Matter
In mid-April, Judge Kenneth Hoyt (S.D. Texas) granted post-trial motions by Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez and ordered that he be released from prison. (See here).
Shortly thereafter, on May 8th, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal in the Fifth Circuit. (See here).
Earlier this summer, the DOJ requested a 30-day extension of time in which to file its opening brief stating that the “the Office of the Solicitor General has not yet determined whether or on what grounds to allow a government appeal to proceed in this case.”
The DOJ is still unsure of an actual appeal.
Berko Convicted Of FCPA And Related Offenses
In the latest example of the Trump administration’s retreat from FCPA enforcement (or some still maintain), earlier today Asante Berko (a former Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International) was convicted by a jury of FCPA and related offenses in connection with a Ghana bribery scheme after a trial in the E.D. of New York.
As reported here: “after deliberating for approximately three hours, a jury of four women and eight men found Berko, 52, guilty of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, conspiracy to do the same, and money laundering conspiracy.”
The trial was believed to be just the 27th FCPA jury trial in the FCPA’s nearly 50 years and the 4th FCPA trial since September 2025.