Elastic Justice |
For decades, the United States projected itself as the world’s foremost defender of rules-based governance. American regulators pursued corruption cases across continents, lecturing developing nations about transparency, institutional independence and equal treatment before the law. Yet every so often, a case emerges that exposes the uncomfortable flexibility beneath that moral language. The reported resolution of the American proceedings involving Indian billionaire Gautam Adani is one such moment. The facts are striking enough on their own.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has moved to settle civil fraud allegations against Mr Adani and his nephew through financial penalties and behavioural safeguards, without any admission of guilt. The US Justice Department has reportedly sought dismissal with prejudice of criminal fraud charges, effectively ensuring they cannot ordinarily be revived. Simultaneously, the US Treasury has imposed a separate financial settlement on Adani Enterprises over alleged sanctions-related violations involving Iranian-origin LPG shipments. None of these actions are inherently unlawful. Prosecutors possess wide discretion in deciding whether cases should proceed.
Civil regulators routinely settle........