Bribery under the spotlight: Adani saga

India’s Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) of 1988 serves as the primary anti-corruption legislation, criminalizing the offer and acceptance of bribes and the granting of any “undue advantage” to public officials. The PCA defines “undue advantage” broadly to include both financial and non-financial benefits well beyond a public official’s statutory remuneration. The term “public servant” includes government employees, employees of public sector organizations and employees of private banks, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. CBI – Ramesh Gelli and Ors.

The PCA also criminalizes acts such as bribing public officials in return for the improper performance of their duties or aiding commercial interests. Recent amendments to the PCA have expanded the law to criminalize those who pay bribes, making them equally liable for prosecution. Penalties under the PCA include imprisonment (ranging from six months to ten years), asset forfeiture, and significant fines. Additionally, people who are forced to offer bribes may be granted immunity if they report the incident within seven days.

The USA (FCPA) also has a wide jurisdiction. The law prohibits bribes intended to secure business advantages to three categories of individuals and entities: (i) issuers, (ii) domestic corporations, and (iii) individuals or entities located within or outside the United States. It is noteworthy that although the alleged criminal activity in the Adani case took place in India, the 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 conduct that takes place abroad is regulated by U.S. law. The SEC also filed a civil lawsuit against Adanis, highlighting the global scope of anti-bribery regulations and the importance of compliance with U.S. laws such as the FCPA. This case shows how international regulatory frameworks are increasingly interconnected and how the legal consequences of abuses in one jurisdiction can reverberate across borders.