Judge Orders Adani To Answer Two Questions
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
Gautam Adani, and others, were charged with securities fraud conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy and several other defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, among other charges.
On May 18th, the DOJ filed a consent motion stating: “The government respectfully submits this motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), requesting that the Court dismiss the indictment in this case with prejudice. The Department of Justice has reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants.”
That Sounds Familiar
For many years, this site has documented how much of the largeness of corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement has been the result of enforcement actions against companies located in countries that – like the U.S. – are also parties to OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Convention).
(see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here)
The question has been posed what legitimate U.S. law enforcement interests are implicated when for example:
DOJ Calls Adani Matter A “Name And Shame” In Encouraging Dismissal
In 2024, the DOJ criminally charged various individuals in connection with an alleged Indian bribery scheme. (See here for the prior post).
Gautam Adani, and others, were charged with securities fraud conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy and several other defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, among other charges.
On May 18th, the DOJ filed a consent motion stating: “The government respectfully submits this motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), requesting that the Court dismiss the indictment in this case with prejudice. The Department of Justice has reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants.”
DOJ Unsure On Actual 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).
In a recent filing, the DOJ has indicated that it is unsure whether there will be an appeal, and if so, on what grounds.
A DOJ attorney with the Criminal Appellate Section stated:
What You Need To Know From Q2
This post provides a summary of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement activity and related developments from the second quarter of 2026. See here for the first quarter of 2026.
DOJ Enforcement (Corporate)
The DOJ did not bring an FCPA enforcement action in the second quarter.
DOJ Enforcement (Individual)
As highlighted here, in April a January 2025 criminal information was unsealed charging Diego Bergonzi (a dual U.S. – Italian citizen who was a Vice President of Sales at Drillmec) with FCPA and related offenses in connection with a bribery scheme in Mexico involving Pemex. Bergonzi pleaded guilty and in April Judge David Hittner (S.D. Tex) ordered Bergonzi to forfeit $1,019,757 (the amount he obtained from the criminal offense). Judge Hittner noted that this “will be made part of the Defendant’s sentence and included in the judgement against him.”