Asia
5 points in the indictment of Indian billionaire Gautam Adani
The indictment of Indian tycoon Gautam Adani, Asia’s second richest man, on bribery charges in a U.S. federal court on Wednesday shocked India.
The charges put his empire under renewed scrutiny less than two years after allegations of financial irregularities by short-seller Hindenburg Research wiped $130bn off the group’s public market value.
Who is Gautam Adani?
Gautam Adani is the founder and chairman of the Adani Group, which has interests in renewable energy, ports, airports, construction materials, food and media. He is often referred to as ‘Number 1’ and ‘Big Man’ by other defendants in the case.
Adani, 62, from a middle-income textile family in the western Indian state of Gujarat, set up his group in 1988 to trade in commodities. Over time, Adani grew his business through an aggressive leverage strategy, moving into many sectors critical to the country’s infrastructure. The group was worth around $170 billion before the indictment led to the sale of its listed assets.
Adani’s rise mirrors that of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, himself from Gujarat. Modi’s political opponents have often claimed that Modi has favored the billionaire, as Adani has benefited greatly from the tenders it has won for public projects thanks to the Modi government’s infrastructure development drive. Both Adani and the government have denied any special treatment.
What are the charges?
U.S. prosecutors allege that Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and six other defendants conspired to pay $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure ‘lucrative solar power supply contracts’. The defendants also allegedly ‘concealed’ the bribes from U.S.-based investors in order to ‘obtain billions of dollars in financing’.
The bribery scheme, dubbed the ‘Corrupt Solar Power Project’ in the indictment, centered on numerous solar power contracts awarded by the state-owned Solar Energy Corporation of India to Adani’s renewable energy unit and another Indian company, Azure Power.
Adani and others have also been charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with making ‘materially false or misleading’ statements about anti-bribery practices when raising $750 million from investors in September 2021, including $175 million from U.S. investors.
How will the indictment affect the Group’s business?
Following the indictment, 11 of the conglomerate’s twelve companies collectively lost around $27 billion in value on Thursday, a repeat of the collapse in January 2023, when Hindenburg Research accused the group of stock manipulation and improper use of offshore tax havens, among other allegations.
Shares in holding company Adani Enterprises fell more than 22%, while shares in Adani Green Energy, the focus of the investigation, fell nearly 19%. Only New Delhi Television (NDTV), the news media arm of the conglomerate, closed marginally higher. Shares in most Adani companies continued to fall in early trading on Friday.
“The indictment could affect Adani’s upcoming fundraising plans. Adani Green Energy has reportedly cancelled the sale of $600 million in U.S. dollar-denominated bonds. The biggest short-term impact of this development is that the Adani Group may find it difficult to raise new funds, especially from leading financial institutions, until its name is cleared,” said Abhishek Basumallick, founder of investment advisory firm Intelsense.
Late on Thursday, Kenyan President William Ruto said he was cancelling Adani’s purchase of a controlling stake in the country’s main airport and a $736 million public-private partnership with the company to build power transmission lines.
How have the Adani Group and the Indian government responded?
In a statement on Thursday, the Adani Group rejected the charges in the indictment, calling them ‘baseless’.
As the U.S. Department of Justice has stated, the charges in the indictment are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty,’ the group said in a statement: ‘All available legal remedies will be pursued.
There has been no official reaction from the Indian government.
Jaideep Mazumdar, Joint Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs, declined to comment when asked about the Adani issue during a press conference on Modi’s visit to Guyana in South America. “This is a press conference organised for the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Guyana and the India-CARICOM (Caribbean Community) Summit, and I am not in a position to respond to questions beyond this mandate,” he said in Guyana’s capital, Georgetown.
Modi’s political rivals have launched a series of attacks on the billionaire.
Rahul Gandhi, senior leader of the Indian National Congress, said at a press conference on Thursday: “Adani has in a way taken over India; the country is in the grip of Adani. So, India’s airports, ports, defence industry… it is a partnership. Modi is on one side of the partnership and Adani is on the other,” he said.
Gandhi is also the leader of the opposition in the lower house of parliament and is in a powerful position to have a say in the appointment of a director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the country’s anti-crime agency. Gandhi said his party would raise Adani’s charges in the winter session of parliament, which begins on Monday.
Is extradition expected to come up?
There is an ongoing investigation into Adani, launched last year by India’s securities regulator in the wake of the Hindenburg Research allegations.
Lawyers in India and the U.S. have said that U.S. prosecutors may seek the extradition of Adani and other defendants in the latest charges. The two countries have had an extradition treaty in place since 1997.
Prashant Mendiratta, a lawyer at the Delhi High Court, said the Indian Ministry of External Affairs would be the primary decision-maker if the U.S. government made an extradition request.
“If the Indian government refuses extradition, the prosecution can approach the Indian judiciary with a petition against the decision … there is a high probability that this will turn into a two-front legal battle,” Mendiratta added.
The Indo-U.S. extradition treaty also stipulates that an offence must be punishable by imprisonment of one year or more before extradition can be granted. Under India’s Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, bribery is only punishable by up to one year in prison.
The more stringent Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) can also be applied in this case.
However, for the PoCA to apply, it must be proven that a bribe was solicited and accepted by the government official.
“Obviously we are aware of these allegations,” White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing on Thursday when asked if the U.S. was concerned that the charges against Adani could damage bilateral relations: “What I would say is that we believe that the relationship between the United States and India rests on an extremely strong foundation based on the relationship between our peoples and cooperation on the full range of global issues.”
Asia
Analysts warn new surge in Chinese exports threatens global markets
Financial Times writer Ryan Avent has written that a fresh, rapid surge in China’s trade surplus could signal a new wave of the “China shock”.
Economists define the “China shock” as a spike in Chinese exports to global markets that intensifies competition for manufacturers in advanced economies and curtails employment in certain sectors.
The term gained widespread currency after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, accelerating the inflow of inexpensive Chinese goods into the US and other nations.
The US was the country hit hardest by the initial shockwave. Between 1999 and 2011, more than 2 million jobs were lost because domestic producers were unable to withstand the competition.
Avent argued that the effects of the initial wave are still felt across the American economy because China failed to carry out the rebalancing that the world expected.
The share of net exports in China’s gross domestic product contracted during the 2007-2019 period, allowing Western nations to focus on national security and other matters.
Avent reported that the trade surplus is now escalating rapidly once again, posing a threat to the economies of wealthy nations.
The writer pointed to the stagnation of domestic demand following the collapse of the real estate market six years ago as one cause of this surplus. Another prominent factor is the Beijing government’s channelling of massive resources into manufacturing in pursuit of self-sufficiency.
Attention was also drawn to the role of the depreciating yuan. An appreciation of the currency could require China to alter its foreign exchange interventions, reduce purchases of foreign currency and assets, and sell those assets off. That scenario could trigger currency depreciation and rising interest rates in other countries.
The Wall Street Journal also reported in the spring of 2024 on economists’ concerns regarding a potential second wave.
Experts predicted that global markets would once again be flooded with inexpensive goods, stating that China was manufacturing far beyond domestic demand to overcome its economic troubles.
Moreover, it was stressed that China is now competing in high-technology fields such as automobiles, computer chips, and complex machinery manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Vasiliy Kashin, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics (HSE) University in Moscow, told the Russian media outlet RBC that the US has imposed sanctions on the Chinese economy since the first shock period, adding that these measures would very likely tighten in the event of a fresh export wave.
According to assessments reported by the Financial Times, this new process could also shake China’s own economy. Alongside rising output, entry-level manufacturing plants across the country are turning toward automation and reducing personnel.
This trend could trigger a painful departure from labour-intensive production, leaving millions unemployed. Manufacturing activities in China that previously capitalised on cheap labour are shifting to other Southeast Asian countries.
The Beijing administration rejected allegations that its industrialisation steps pose risks to other countries. As reported by the Xinhua news agency, China’s Ministry of Commerce stressed that claims of a “China shock 2.0” are groundless. The ministry stated:
“The US and other Western countries have circulated the so-called ‘China shock 2.0’ narrative, asserting that China’s industrial development has shaken Western monopolies and narrowed growth space for Global South countries. This claim is unsupported by concrete data and is entirely unfounded.”
Asia
Iran and China run secret barter network to bypass oil sanctions
Iran is operating a covert, barter-like trade mechanism to bypass sanctions on its oil sales and procure billions of dollars in goods from China, including military hardware.
Speaking to the Reuters news agency, two senior Iranian officials and three sources closely monitoring the matter said the Tehran administration receives credits for goods imported from China instead of cash in exchange for the oil it sells to the country.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasised that this method of swapping oil revenues for Chinese goods provides an immediate financial lifeline to the Tehran government at a time when the US has intensified economic and military pressure over its nuclear programme.
China, the world’s largest crude importer, continues to access discounted Iranian oil through this arrangement while shielding its banks and exporting companies from the risk of international penalties.
Although the Washington administration has imposed sanctions on several small-scale Chinese entities facilitating the transport of Iranian oil, it avoids sweeping measures that could shake the global economy.
The US has stepped up its pressure as it seeks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz amid the ongoing war between the two countries.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month that countries failing to cut commercial ties with Tehran would risk exclusion from the dollar system.
It remains unclear how the barter mechanism has been affected by the US naval blockade imposed on Iran as part of the six-month-old war.
However, since the reimposition of the blockade on 14 July, no shipments of Iranian oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz to China have been recorded.
Beijing and Tehran, which describe Western unilateral sanctions as illegal, refrain from disclosing publicly how they sustain their trade.
Sources state that Tehran introduced this system to obtain pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and communications equipment. Chinese manufacturers are said to have no direct contact with Iran, and there is no indication that they are violating sanctions.
On the other hand, the mechanism was utilised at least once last year under contracts supplying Iran with millions of dollars’ worth of air defence equipment. The sources provided no details regarding the shipments in question, and the transactions were not independently verified.
The United Nations conventional arms embargo returned alongside other sanctions in September 2025 following the collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers.
Tehran had withdrawn from the terms of the agreement, while Beijing and Tehran described the European nations’ automatic reimposition of sanctions as legally flawed.
Responding to questions from Reuters, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it had no knowledge of the trade structure in question.
Beijing stated that it opposes unilateral sanctions lacking United Nations Security Council authorisation and having no basis in international law.
Iran’s diplomatic missions in New York and Geneva remained silent on the inquiries. A US official speaking on behalf of the White House stated only that they are working with international partners, including the EU, to prevent Tehran from achieving its nuclear goals.
According to data analytics company Kpler, China purchased more than 80% of the crude oil exported by Iran in 2025. This share equates to an average of 1.4 million barrels per day.
Although the two countries signed a 25-year strategic partnership agreement in 2021 covering energy and infrastructure, the operational details of their cooperation remain largely confidential.
The model in question constitutes only one of the networks through which Iran procures goods and services from China without passing through international banking channels.
A Western official and two other individuals tracking the matter said that a buyer acting on behalf of state-owned Chinese oil company Zhuhai Zhenrong deposited hundreds of millions of dollars each month until this year into ChuXin, a shadow financial entity based in China.
These deposits reportedly represent payment for oil purchased from a Hong Kong-based company linked to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
Approximately 70% of the oil revenues routed through ChuXin is allocated to infrastructure projects in Iran. The remainder is transferred to the accounts of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) established to disburse payments to companies supplying goods to Iran.
Sources close to Iran’s decision-making apparatus confirm the existence of this financial mechanism.
Fund management is shared between a firm acting on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and another entity linked to the Central Bank of Iran. When the Central Bank of Iran authorises importers, money transfers are directed to supplier firms. While the name ChuXin does not appear in official records, one source noted that the structure exists solely on balance sheets.
Andrea Ghiselli, an international politics specialist at the University of Exeter, stated that Beijing uses these indirect networks to demonstrate that it will not bow to US secondary sanction threats.
Highlighting that Chinese leaders aim to protect their own banks and firms from being pushed out of the global financial system, Ghiselli said: “They want to create deniability.”
Asia
China leads $54bn capital injection into state banks and insurers
China’s Ministry of Finance will lead a total capital injection of $54 billion into state-owned insurance companies and banks as part of a coordinated push to reinforce the capital structure across the country’s financial system, according to details disclosed by the institutions in statements on Sunday.
China Life Insurance (Group) Co, the country’s largest life insurer, will receive 35 billion yuan ($5.2 billion) in capital support, whilst China Taiping Insurance Group will receive 7 billion yuan.
In a separate announcement, People’s Insurance Company (Group) of China (PICC) said it plans to raise up to 15 billion yuan via a private placement of A-shares to the Ministry of Finance. The company stated that the proceeds will be used to replenish its capital.
The initiative could fortify the financial position of state insurers, which have been called upon to support the equity market with medium- and long-term funds. At the same time, it could position these institutions to help regulatory authorities manage smaller and higher-risk insurance companies.
Financial sector stability
China’s insurance industry has been contending with shrinking profitability caused by prolonged low interest rates. Solvency ratios across numerous small and medium-sized insurers have also deteriorated.
China Export and Credit Insurance Corp stated that the Ministry of Finance will inject 10 billion yuan to boost the company’s core capital. China Reinsurance (Group) announced that it will execute a capital increase of 3 billion yuan.
“The capital injection represents an important step for enhancing the financial sector’s capacity to serve the real economy and promoting high-quality development across the financial and insurance industries,” China Life said in a statement. The insurer added that the capital support will improve the group’s resilience to risks.
Taiping also noted that the funds provided will strengthen the company’s solvency and other core metrics.
Banks benefit from recapitalisation plan
Separately, three state banks announced on Sunday that they will receive capital support totalling 290 billion yuan.
The recapitalisation framework was first announced during the annual parliamentary meetings in March this year. The move broadens a funding mechanism deployed last year to strengthen the capital structures of several other major state-owned lenders.
Agricultural Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), two of the country’s largest state-owned lenders, announced plans to raise up to 160 billion yuan and 100 billion yuan, respectively, through private placements of A-shares to the Ministry of Finance, China National Tobacco Corp, and affiliated entities.
Both lenders confirmed that all net proceeds will be deployed to replenish their Core Tier 1 capital. The measure is expected to help sustain credit expansion at a juncture when Beijing is increasingly relying on state lenders to support economic growth.
Weak credit demand remains a persistent headwind for the world’s second-largest economy, while continuing to erode profitability across the banking sector.
Export-Import Bank of China, one of the country’s three policy banks, stated that the Ministry of Finance will inject 30 billion yuan of capital into the institution, thereby bolstering its capital base.
-
Europe6 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
