Order Denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration and Denying 50 Motion to appeal — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 63, N.D. Ga. No. 1:22-cr-00171)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 63 · 2023-09-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
v. 
 
Carl Delano Torjagbo, 
 
Defendant. 
 
________________________________/ 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
The Court denies Defendant Carl Torjagbo’s Motion for Review of 
the Magistrate Judge’s order of detention.  (Dkt. 50.)    
I. 
Background 
Defendant is charged with several counts of bank fraud and money 
laundering arising from his efforts to fraudulently obtain more than $6 
million from the federal government.  According to the United States (and 
as alleged in the indictment) Defendant applied for a $9.5 million PPP 
loan on behalf of a company called “Kremkov Industries.”  (Dkt. 1 ¶ 8.)  
In the application, Defendant swore Kremkov Industries existed in 
February 2020, needed the loan to support on-going operations, and had 
493 employees with a monthly payroll of $3.8 million.  (Id. ¶¶ 5-13.)  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 1 of 12

 
2
Those were all lies—the company did not exist in February 2020, never 
conducted any legitimate business, never had any employees, and never 
paid any payroll.  (Id.)  As part of the application, Defendant also 
submitted a host of bogus documents, including false tax returns and fake 
reports listing the names of the 493 people he claimed to be Kremkov 
employees.  (Id. ¶ 15.)  The United States fell for Defendant’s lies and 
transferred $9.5 million to his bank account.  (Id. ¶ 16.)  He had only $105 
in bank before that.  (Id. ¶ 18.)   
The indictment explains how Defendant moved that money into six 
different bank accounts, spent some of it on various things, filed a 
petition to change his name from Carl Delano Torjagbo to Karl Lucius 
Delano, and purchased luxury items, including a house, a Lamborghini, 
a Range Rover, a BMW, and (most stupidly) cosmetic surgery for 
something called “surfer abs.”  (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 22-33; 52 at 6.)  The United 
States argues that, although it has not yet filed charges, it has evidence 
Defendant also committed aggravated identity theft (involving 
fraudulent documents he submitted to obtain the PPP loan) and wire 
fraud (arising from two tax refunds Defendant sought using false 
information.)  (Dkt. 52 at 7.)   
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 2 of 12

 
3
The United States moved for detention, arguing Defendant was 
both a danger to the community and a risk of flight.  (Dkt. 10.)  The 
Magistrate Judge granted that motion, finding the United States 
satisfied its burden of showing Defendant was a danger by clear and 
convincing evidence and a risk of flight by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  (Dkt. 11.)  In doing so, the Magistrate Judge relied upon 
evidence regarding the strength of the United States’s case, the amount 
of money he stole, Defendant’s scant ties to the district, his significant 
ties overseas, and his possession of a passport and pilot’s license.  (Id.)   
Defendant now appeals that decision.  He argues he is a naturalized 
citizen of the United States who has resided in the Atlanta area for “a 
substantial period of time” and has a “local support group” that includes 
a cousin with whom he could live if released.  (Dkt. 31 ¶ 4.)  He also 
argues that he will surrender his pilot’s license, comply with home 
confinement and location monitoring, and is not a danger to anyone as 
the United States was the only victim of his non-violent offense.  (Id. 
¶¶ 5-6.)  He says he would surrender his passport but already reported it 
stolen.     
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 3 of 12

 
4
The Court held a hearing.  A question arose about Defendant’s 
passport—defendant still insisting he did not have it to surrender as he 
had previously reported it stolen.  (Transcript of August 15, 2023 Hearing 
(“Tran.”) at 11.)  The United States subsequently notified the Court that 
it does not believe Defendant.  According to the United States, Defendant 
has had two passports since 2014.  (Dkt. 60.)  He got the first one, ending 
in 8896, in 2014 and reported it stolen to the State Department in 2015 
to get a replacement passport.  (Id. at 2.)  He got the second (replacement) 
passport, ending in 6005, in 2015 and has never reported that one stolen 
to the State Department.   (Id.)  Apparently, in 2021 Defendant reported 
to USCIS that his ex-girlfriend had stolen his “passport, naturalization 
certificate, birth certificate, and Covid records,” but never told the State 
Department about his passport having been stolen.  (Id.)  The 6005 
passport remains valid.  (Id.)   
At the hearing, the Court also inquired of the cousin named Peter 
with whom Defendant proposed to live if released.  Peter stated that, 
while Defendant could live with him, his wife was not willing to post a 
bond in support of Defendant’s appearance.  (Tran. at 17-18.)  The United 
States has since notified the Court that, when FBI agents sought to seize 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 4 of 12

 
5
the Lamborghini Defendant allegedly purchased with fraudulently 
obtained funds, Peter  tried to take possession of the car ahead of law 
enforcement.  (Id. at  6-7.)      
 
The United States also provided additional information about the 
Defendant’s financial condition.  It explained that, as of April 2021, 
Defendant had control of more than $6.3 million from his fraudulent 
activity.  (Dkt. 60 at 7-8.)1  Following the indictment here, the United 
States froze $1.9 million, but Defendant apparently spent or otherwise 
placed the remaining money beyond the reach of law enforcement.  The 
United States says Defendant may still have access to that money. 
II. 
Legal Standard 
 
The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141-3150, governs the release 
and detention of defendants awaiting trial.  It provides for the pretrial 
detention of a defendant if “the judicial officer finds that no condition or 
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 
person as required and the safety of any other person and the 
 
1 This included $3 million from the PPP fraud and $3.3 million from the 
tax fraud.  Although not clear,  it appears the United States clawed back 
most of the PPP loan.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 5 of 12

 
6
community. . . .”  18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).  In determining whether there 
are conditions of release that will reasonably assure a defendant’s 
appearance at trial, a court must consider: (1) the nature and 
circumstances of the offenses charged, (2) the weight of the evidence 
against the defendant, (3) the history and characteristics of the 
defendant, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person 
or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.  18 U.S.C. 
§ 3142(g).2  When the government seeks pretrial detention because a 
defendant poses a serious risk of flight, the government's burden of proof 
is by a preponderance of the evidence.  United States v. King, 849 F.2d 
485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988).  For detention based on danger to the 
community, the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence.  Id.   
The Bail Reform Act allows either party to seek review of an order 
requiring pretrial detention.  18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).  The district court then 
reviews the magistrate judge’s decision de novo.  United States v. 
Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1480 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Gavaria, 
828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987).   The district court may rely entirely 
 
2 As the Court determines defendant is a risk of flight, it does not assess 
his dangerousness to the community. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 6 of 12

 
7
on the pleadings and the evidence developed before the magistrate judge 
or it may conduct its own evidentiary hearing.  King, 849 F.2d at 490.   
 III. Analysis 
 
This Court held an evidentiary hearing to assess the factors 
relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and to determine whether there are 
conditions of release that will reasonably assure Defendant’s presence at 
trial and the safety of the community.  The government introduced 
evidence about the charges against Defendant, the evidence supporting 
those charges, his connections outside the United States, and his efforts 
to change his identity.  Counsel for Defendant also presented evidence 
about his ties to the district.  The United States then provided additional 
information, as explained above.   
A. 
Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses Charged 
Defendant is charged with four felony counts involving the theft of 
more than $9 million from the United States.  If convicted on the bank 
fraud charges, he could face up to 30 years in prison.  A preliminary 
analysis of the Sentencing Guidelines also suggests Defendant likely 
faces a recommended Guideline sentence (if convicted) of 135 to 168 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 7 of 12

 
8
months.  (Dkt. 60 at 12.)  The seriousness of the charges provides 
Defendant significant incentive to flee.   
The United States says it will likely supersede the indictment to 
add charges for tax fraud and aggravated identity theft.  If convicted of 
the latter, Defendant would face a two-year mandatory sentence to be 
served consecutively to any sentence on the fraud charges.  The United 
States has not yet added these charges, and they are not the basis for the 
Court’s decision.  But the threat of further charges provides Defendant 
additional incentive to flee.   
The nature and circumstances of the offense weigh heavily in favor 
of detention.   
B. 
Weight of the Evidence 
The Court acknowledges that the weight of the evidence is the least 
important factor in a detention analysis.  See United States v. Winsor, 
785 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir. 1986).  Even so, the evidence is significant.  
The indictment catalogues Defendant’s efforts to defraud the United 
States for the PPP loan and his efforts to conceal and spend the illegally 
obtained money.  The United States apparently can trace the funds from 
Defendant’s fraudulent application into his personal bank accounts and 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 8 of 12

 
9
then to his personal use.  Defendant has never not seriously challenged 
the strength of the evidence against him.   
The evidence proffered weighs in favor of detention.   
C. 
History and Characteristics of the defendant 
Defendant is a naturalized citizen.  But, according to the 
Magistrate Judge (who relied on the Pretrial Services Report), Defendant 
does not have substantial ties to this district, having only lived in the 
district for less than a year prior to his arrest.  (Dkt. 52 at 8; Pretrial 
Services Report (“PSR”) at 1.)  Defendant has no verifiable work history 
and has not worked since 2016.  (Dkt. 52 at 8; PSR at 2; Tran. at 20.)  He 
also lied to the Magistrate Judge at the detention hearing when he 
claimed to work for a company (Flying Jack) that was funded entirely 
from fraudulent proceeds.  (Tran. at 20.)  He has significant ties outside 
the United States.  He has family living in Ghana, for example, is a pilot, 
and still has a valid passport (despite claiming to have reported it stolen).  
(Dkt. 52 at 8.)  The United States has not been able to recover the money 
he obtained in this case, suggesting he may still have access to some of 
it.  He also wired $79,000 to family in Ghana and claimed to law 
enforcement after his arrest that he has “offshore” bank accounts in the 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 9 of 12

 
10
Emirates and Africa.  (Tran. at 5-6; Dkt. 60 at 9-10.)  He also said he has 
a company, employees, and assets in Africa.  (Tran. at 7.)  One of 
Defendant’s colleagues also told the FBI that Defendant’s sister was able 
to collect funds from overseas to help Defendant, thus further evidencing 
his ties outside the United States.  (Dkt. 60 at 10.)  Maybe he is not really 
from Ghana.  That’s what he told the Pretrial Services Officer.  (Tran at 
13.)  But when interviewed more recently by a psychologist, he claimed 
to be from South Africa, 3,000 miles away from Ghana.  (Id.)  He also told 
the Pretrial Services Officer he was not married and the psychologist that 
he had never been married.  (Dkt. 60 at 4.)  But the United States now 
says he claimed to have been married when he applied for U.S. 
citizenship.  (Id.)  So perhaps his citizenship was wrongfully obtained.  
And then there is the disturbing fact that, after obtaining the fraudulent 
funds, Defendant petitioned the State of Georgia to change his name—
pretty good evidence he wants to conceal his identity.  Against all of this, 
Defendant merely says he can live with Peter.  But Peter will not post 
collateral to assure Defendant’s appearance.   
In a nutshell, Defendant has no local ties or employment, has family 
ties, money, and (perhaps) employment overseas, owns a valid passport 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 10 of 12

 
11
(that he still has not reported as stolen), and knows how to fly a plane.  
Rolling into that the United States’s inability to recover more than $1 
million he took, considering the shifting information about where he is 
from and whether he is married, and pondering his efforts to change his 
name leads to one conclusion: Defendant’s history and characteristics 
favor detention and give almost no assurance he will remain in the 
district for trial. 
IV. 
Conclusion 
Having considered all available information and the factors set 
forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(g), the Court 
concludes no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably 
assure the appearance of Defendant at trial.   He faces significant charges 
that could result in significant jail time.  The United States has  
substantial evidence of his involvement in the charged offenses.  
Defendant has no ties here and significant ties outside the United States.  
He has no property tying him to the United States and could present no 
family or friends who might be willing to post a surety so as to assure his 
appearance.  Defendant clearly has plenty of motive to flee the United 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 11 of 12

 
12
States (possible incarceration here and family and money overseas) as 
well as the manner and means of doing so (money and a passport).        
After a de novo and independent review, the Court DENIES 
Defendant’s Motion for Review of the Magistrate Judge’s order of 
detention (Dkt. 50) and Defendant’s pro se motion to appeal order of 
detention (Dkt. 49).  
SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
1 (1 
1 (1 
M I C H " K E L L . B R O W N 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 63     Filed 09/19/23     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.63.0.pdf

Size

162,175 bytes

SHA-256

71bd97afc9d2feecca98049cc51d7d955e6e24e4b890bcca60d529b20dbea148

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.63.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)