Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BABAJIDE G. ADEFUSI

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-02

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Babajide Adefusi’s motion to dismiss a wire fraud indictment, holding that a prior plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas did not bar prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois. The court applied de novo review to determine whether the plea agreement was ambiguous and interpreted its terms according to general principles of contract law, giving effect to the agreement’s literal language. The court found Paragraph 11 of the agreement unambiguous in stating that the plea agreement “binds only” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas and “does not bind any other United States Attorney.” Because the text explicitly limited the non-prosecution promise to the drafting office, the court rejected Adefusi’s argument that a broader promise was made in Paragraph 10, noting that accepting his interpretation would render Paragraph 11’s limiting language meaningless. Consequently, the Central District of Illinois prosecution did not breach the agreement, and the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.