YS Jagan Mohan Reddy denied bribery allegations connected to a U.S. case over solar-energy contracts involving Gautam Adani’s business interests. U.S. authorities alleged a bribery and investor-fraud scheme; those allegations were not a trial verdict. Reddy said he neither took nor was offered bribes, and argued that the Andhra Pradesh power agreement at issue was between state distribution companies and the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), not the Adani Group.
What the U.S. authorities alleged
On November 20, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced an indictment charging Gautam Adani and seven other business executives in connection with an alleged bribery and investor-fraud scheme involving Indian solar-energy contracts. The government alleged that more than $250 million in bribes were offered to Indian officials and that information about the alleged scheme was concealed from investors. It also projected about $2 billion in after-tax profits over roughly 20 years from the contracts. Those figures describe the government’s allegations and projection, not amounts established at trial or profits shown to have been realized.
The indictment and a related Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) civil complaint are separate filings. Scroll reported that the indictment referred to an official as “Foreign Official #1” without naming that person. The SEC complaint identified the official as Andhra Pradesh’s chief minister at the time. Reddy was chief minister from 2019 until June 2024, during the period described, but it is inaccurate to say that the criminal indictment named him.
What Reddy said in response
On November 28, 2024, Reddy rejected the allegations, said there was no evidence that he or people in his government had received bribes, and argued that the indictment did not name him. Scroll reported him saying: “Incentives were never offered to me by anyone, nor can anyone dare to do so.” His denial is his account of the allegations, not a court finding about whether any alleged conduct occurred.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware match#1 Best Overall
Reddy also disputed the suggestion that Adani Group was a party to the power purchase agreement. As reported by The Indian Express, he said: “The power purchase agreement was between Andhra Pradesh government discoms and the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) – two government agencies. No others, including industrialist Gautam Adani or the Adani Group, were involved in this.”
How Reddy described the SECI power agreement
Reddy’s explanation focused on the parties to the agreement and the tariff. He said the agreement was between Andhra Pradesh’s distribution companies and SECI, a Government of India enterprise, and that Adani Group was not a party. He cited a tariff of ₹2.49 per kilowatt-hour under the agreement, compared with nearly ₹5.10 per kilowatt-hour when his government took office. These are figures and contract descriptions attributed to Reddy in The Indian Express report; they are not independently established contract findings here.
Reddy’s counsel gave a fuller account in legal notices sent to Eenadu and Andhra Jyothy on November 30, 2024, as reported by The News Minute. The notices said the Council of Ministers approved the proposal on October 28, 2021, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission approved it on November 11, and a power sale agreement was executed on December 1, 2021. The notices asserted there were no other parties to the agreement. These details reflect the legal notice’s account, rather than an independently reviewed contract.
What happened in the U.S. proceedings afterward
The criminal case and the SEC civil matter have had distinct procedural developments. The later actions described below do not establish that Reddy took a bribe or resolve every allegation concerning the other defendants.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Proceeding | Reported development | What it does—and does not—establish |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal case | On August 12, 2026, The Indian Express reported that Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed Counts Two, Three, and Four with prejudice against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and former Adani Green CEO Vneet Jaain. The report described the counts as securities-fraud conspiracy, wire-fraud conspiracy, and securities fraud. | The report said the dismissals reflected prosecutorial discretion, not a verdict on the merits. It said there was no trial, witness examination, or testing of evidence in court. |
| Remaining criminal counts | The same August 12 report said the judge reserved judgment on Count One, concerning Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allegations, and Count Five, an obstruction-conspiracy allegation, involving five non-appearing, India-based co-defendants. The judge set August 31, 2026, as the deadline for further submissions. | The report does not establish what happened to those counts after the deadline. It therefore does not support saying the entire criminal case was resolved. |
| SEC civil matter | On May 14, 2026, the SEC sought proposed consent judgments against Gautam and Sagar Adani, with proposed penalties of $6 million and $12 million respectively, subject to court approval. | The SEC said both consented without admitting or denying the complaint’s allegations. The release described proposed judgments, not final court approval. |
Separately, in May 2026 prosecutors asked a judge to dismiss criminal charges against Adani and other defendants. The Indian Express’s August report later described the dismissal of three counts and the judge’s treatment of the remaining counts. CBS News also reported the partial dismissal and criticism of the Justice Department’s handling of its request. Neither the partial dismissals nor the proposed SEC judgments should be treated as a trial verdict on the bribery allegations.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the denials and court actions mean
Reddy’s denial, the company’s denial, the government’s allegations, and the court’s procedural decisions are different kinds of statements. On November 21, 2024, Adani Group said the allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice and SEC against Adani Green directors were “baseless and denied.” That was the company’s position, not a finding about the allegations. The Adani Group statement is distinct from the subsequent court actions.
The judge’s reported dismissal of three counts against three defendants was not an acquittal after trial and did not determine the truth of the alleged bribery scheme. The latest dated report described here, published August 12, 2026, left two counts involving five other co-defendants awaiting further action after the August 31 submission deadline. The later status of those counts is not established by that report.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
