The SEC’s Adani Impasse: A Legal Standoff with Global Implications 

For over a year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been locked in a procedural stalemate, unable to serve legal papers to Gautam and Sagar Adani in India regarding fraud and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allegations, as India’s Ministry of Law and Justice has reported “no progress” for eight consecutive months despite the SEC using the proper diplomatic channels under the Hague Service Convention, highlighting a significant clash between U.S. regulatory reach and international sovereignty that prevents the judicial process from moving forward on serious charges that the Adani Group denies as baseless.

The SEC’s Adani Impasse: A Legal Standoff with Global Implications 

Introduction: A Year of Diplomatic Gridlock 

For over a year, a significant legal confrontation has been unfolding in the shadows of international finance and diplomacy—one that pits the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against one of India’s most powerful industrial families. The case, involving allegations of fraud and foreign bribery by Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani, has encountered an unexpected and persistent obstacle: the simple act of delivering legal papers. 

Since November 2024, when the SEC first filed its complaint, the commission has been unable to serve summons to the Adani defendants, despite eight months of attempts through diplomatic channels. This procedural standoff reveals much more than bureaucratic delay—it highlights the complex intersection of national sovereignty, international law, and corporate accountability in an increasingly interconnected global economy. 

The Core Allegations: What’s at Stake? 

The legal standoff concerns serious allegations that have attracted attention on both sides of the Atlantic. According to the SEC’s 39-page complaint, Gautam Adani (founder, chairman, and controlling shareholder of Adani Green Energy Ltd) and Sagar Adani (the company’s executive director) allegedly orchestrated a scheme to secure contracts for what was described as India’s largest solar power plant project. 

The commission accuses them of misleading U.S. investors with false claims during a 2021 debt offering by Adani Green Energy—a security that traded in American markets. In a parallel criminal action filed the same day, U.S. prosecutors have charged the Adanis along with six others with conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud, alleging approximately $265 million in bribes to secure solar energy contracts expected to generate $2 billion in profits over two decades. 

The Adani Group has consistently denied these charges, calling them “baseless.” Yet the legal process cannot proceed to examine the evidence or the defense until the preliminary step of service is completed—a step that has proven unexpectedly complicated. 

The Hague Convention Hurdle: Legal Frameworks and Practical Realities 

The central mechanism for serving legal documents across international borders in this case is the Hague Service Convention, a multilateral treaty signed by 79 countries including both the United States and India. Under Article 5(a) of this convention, the SEC formally requested assistance from India’s Ministry of Law and Justice—designated as India’s Central Authority under the treaty—in February 2025. 

The convention typically provides a reliable framework for cross-border legal service, but its effectiveness depends entirely on the cooperation of the receiving country’s central authority. In this instance, that cooperation appears to have been inconsistent at best. While the SEC reported in April that Indian authorities had “confirmed receipt” of the request and passed it to relevant judicial authorities, subsequent months have yielded no tangible progress. 

This situation creates a peculiar legal limbo. The defendants, though formally charged, have not been legally notified through proper channels, which means the judicial process cannot move forward. Each passing status report—filed in June, August, October, and December—repeats the same frustrating message: “no progress.” 

Contradictions and Confusion: The Indian Response 

The procedural delays took an intriguing turn early in the process when the SEC’s claims about initiating service were directly contradicted by Indian authorities. In February 2025, three days after the SEC informed the U.S. court that it had formally requested assistance through diplomatic channels, India’s Department of Legal Affairs responded to a Right to Information query stating that “no such request had been received.” 

This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency of communication between governments, the possibility of bureaucratic delays within India’s justice ministry, or perhaps more strategic considerations. International legal experts note that while countries generally comply with Hague Convention requests, the timeline can vary significantly based on diplomatic relations, domestic priorities, and the sensitivity of cases involving high-profile nationals. 

The Indian government has not publicly commented on the specific delays in this case, maintaining its standard position of respecting international legal obligations while protecting the interests of its citizens abroad. 

Alternative Approaches and Their Limitations 

Faced with diplomatic gridlock, the SEC has attempted alternative methods of service. In April 2025, the commission disclosed that it had identified legal counsel representing Gautam Adani and sent a “Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons” directly to that counsel. 

This approach, while pragmatic, yielded the same result: neither Gautam nor Sagar Adani agreed to waive formal service requirements. Their refusal is legally understandable—defendants in complex international cases rarely voluntarily streamline procedures that might disadvantage them, especially when jurisdictional questions remain unresolved. 

The SEC’s disclosure that it had identified Adani’s legal representation suggests the commission has been conducting substantial background work even as the service issue remains unresolved. This preparatory work might position them to move more quickly once the procedural hurdle is cleared, but for now, it remains secondary to the primary challenge of formal notification. 

The Broader Context: FCPA Enforcement Shifts 

This case unfolds against a changing backdrop of U.S. foreign corruption enforcement. In February 2025, an executive order from President Donald Trump paused new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations for 180 days, directing revised enforcement guidelines. When the pause lifted in June 2025, the new guidelines refocused enforcement on cases involving drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and conduct directly undermining U.S. national interests. 

Significantly, the SEC retains civil authority to enforce the FCPA against companies with publicly traded securities in the United States—precisely the authority being exercised in the Adani case. The parallel criminal charges, however, may face different considerations under the revised guidelines, potentially creating a divergence between civil and criminal enforcement priorities. 

This policy shift adds another layer of complexity to an already complicated case, raising questions about how consistently different arms of the U.S. government will pursue the matter as it potentially progresses. 

Comparative Perspectives: The Azure Power Connection 

The Adani case did not emerge in isolation. On the same day the SEC filed its complaint against the Adanis, the commission charged Cyril Cabanes, a former member of Azure Power Global Ltd’s Board of Directors, with violations of the FCPA for his alleged role in the same bribery scheme. 

According to the SEC’s complaint, Cabanes—who was additionally charged in the parallel criminal action—allegedly facilitated the authorization of bribes while in the United States and abroad. This multi-defendant, multi-company approach suggests investigators believe they have uncovered a broader pattern of corruption in India’s solar energy sector, with potential implications for other companies and individuals. 

The inclusion of someone who allegedly committed acts within the United States (Cabanes) may provide jurisdictional advantages for prosecutors, contrasting with the challenges posed by defendants who have remained entirely abroad like the Adanis. 

Implications for International Business and Regulation 

This protracted service dispute carries significant implications beyond the immediate case: 

• Corporate Accountability: The difficulty in serving high-profile defendants may encourage other international executives to believe they can avoid U.S. jurisdiction by remaining in their home countries, potentially undermining cross-border securities enforcement. 

• Investor Confidence: U.S. investors in foreign companies rely on SEC oversight to ensure transparency and fair dealing. Procedural obstacles that prevent enforcement actions from proceeding could erode confidence in international markets. 

• Diplomatic Relations: The repeated “no progress” reports, filed in U.S. courts but undoubtedly reviewed by both governments, create subtle diplomatic friction even without formal protests or confrontations. 

• Legal Innovation: This case may eventually push courts and regulators to develop alternative methods for establishing jurisdiction over foreign defendants, particularly in digitally connected global markets. 

Potential Pathways Forward 

As the standoff continues, several potential developments could break the deadlock: 

• Diplomatic Intervention: Higher-level discussions between U.S. and Indian officials might expedite the service process, particularly if the case gains more prominent attention. 

• Judicial Creativity: The U.S. court might eventually consider alternative service methods if diplomatic channels prove ineffective indefinitely, though this would raise sovereign sensitivity issues. 

• Voluntary Appearance: The defendants might eventually choose to engage with the process, particularly if business interests compel resolution of the uncertainty. 

• Case Evolution: Changes in the broader enforcement environment or developments in related cases might alter the strategic calculations of all parties involved. 

Conclusion: A Test Case for Global Governance 

The SEC’s struggle to serve the Adani defendants represents more than a procedural footnote in a complex financial case. It serves as a revealing test case for the practical realities of cross-border regulation in an era of globally integrated markets but nationally divided legal systems. 

The tension between sovereignty and accountability plays out in this technical dispute over document service. For now, the machinery of international justice grinds slowly, with each status report documenting not just the lack of progress in a single case, but the broader challenges of constructing effective global governance frameworks. 

As the SEC prepares its sixth status report, the financial and legal communities watch closely. The outcome will signal how effectively international systems can hold powerful economic actors accountable across borders—a question with implications far beyond any single corporation or individual. The Adani case has become, perhaps unintentionally, a bellwether for the future of transnational corporate regulation in an increasingly interconnected yet legally fragmented world.