Bribery in the spotlight: the Adani saga

India’s Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) is India’s main anti-corruption legislation and criminalizes the offering and taking of bribes, as well as the granting of any “undue advantage” to public servants. The PCA defines “undue advantage” broadly, encompassing both financial and non-financial benefits, well beyond the legal remuneration of a public servant. The term “public servant” extends to public employees, employees of public sector entities and employees of private banks, as stated by the Supreme Court in CBI vs Ramesh Gelli & Ors.

The PCA also penalizes actions such as giving bribes to public servants in exchange for inadequate performance of their duties or to assist commercial interests. Recent amendments to the PCA have expanded the law to also criminalize bribers, making them equally liable to be prosecuted. Penalties under the PCA include imprisonment (ranging from six months to ten years), asset confiscation and substantial fines. Additionally, people who are forced to offer bribes may be granted immunity if they report the incident within seven days.

The United States (FCPA) also has broad jurisdictional reach. The Act prohibits bribes intended to obtain commercial advantage and applies to three categories of persons and entities: (i) issuers, (ii) domestic companies, and (iii) individuals or entities, whether inside or outside the US. Notably, although the alleged criminal activity in the Adani case took place in India, charges were filed in Brooklyn Federal Court in the United States due to the scheme’s connection to the Eastern District of New York. This underscores the complex, cross-border nature of the case, where U.S. law governs conduct that takes place abroad. The SEC has also launched a civil case against the Adanis, highlighting the global reach of anti-bribery regulations and the importance of compliance with US laws such as the FCPA. The case exemplifies how international regulatory frameworks are increasingly interconnected and how the legal consequences of misconduct in one jurisdiction can reverberate across borders.