With the US Department of Justice defending its decision to seek the dismissal of the alleged bribery case against Gautam Adani and others, legal experts have weighed in to say that the reply is sufficient and raises questions on the quality of evidence presented to bring the case.
Seth DuCharme, Partner Bracewell LP says that it reasons to stand that if the prosecution decides not to pursue a case then it will not happen. "The letter points out where the discretion lies to prosecute in the Executive Branch as opposed to the Judicial Branch. And if we think ahead to the ultimate conclusion of what would happen, the basic principle here is can a court essentially compel a prosecutor to continue to prosecute a case in which they have determined there's no longer a public interest or a prosecutorial interest in pursuing. And I think it's inevitable that if the prosecution decides not to pursue a case, then it will evaporate...I think collectively that were a prosecutor to determine that it was no longer just to prosecute. I think that's where the empathy for the defendant lies," he said.
"The Department has responded with far more detail than they typically do. And ultimately if the Department doesn't want to prosecute the case, there will be no prosecution. Whether Judge Garaufis finds the letter sufficient from his point of view remains to be seen. But the law is pretty clear. I would say, that a court cannot compel a prosecution to continue," he added.
"The presumption is that if you indict a person they should have the opportunity to have their day in court, and that's the only time that the government's case can really be challenged publicly. So, if you indict someone without ever expecting them uh to appear and if you have a rule of reason, in other words, why would someone appear, in federal court to face charges in the United States when they don't have to, it's really the only way that you can defend and vindicate your rights under most circumstances. Here, the indictment was dismissed and so certainly there was advocacy that prevailed and discretion that was exercised," Seth DuCharme said.
"The Eastern District of New York US Attorney's Office is known for being a very aggressive office. They often prosecute cases that involve people outside the United States...In that way when you have entrepreneurial prosecutors trying to show positive results within the policies of the administration in which the indictment was brought, it's not, uh, unusual that the office would make an aggressive case, and it's similarly reasonable that a new DoJ with new policies would take a more conservative view of how those statutes should be used," Seth DuCharme added.
The case against Gautam Adani and others had alleged a bribery scheme linked to solar power contracts in India which further allegedly misled US investors. In May this year the US DoJ had moved to dismiss these charges following which the US Court of the Eastern District of New York has sought a reply from the DoJ. With that reply cementing the US DoJ's position, legal experts argue that the Judge in all likelihood would back the DoJ stand. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
