Amended Motion to Suppress Statements by Carl Delano Torjagbo — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 88, 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. 88 · 2024-05-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 
 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
) 
 
 
    
 
) 
 
 
vs. 
 
 
    
 
) 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
     )     1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO  
 
) 
                                    ) 
AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS 
 
 
COMES NOW the Defendant, CARL TORJAGBO, by and through his 
undersigned counsel, and files this amended motion to suppress statements.1  In 
support of this motion, Mr. Torjagbo states the following. 
 
Mr. Torjagbo is under indictment for one count of bank fraud in violation of 
18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2, three counts of concealment money laundering in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2, and three counts of transactional 
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2.  Count One alleges 
that Mr. Torjagbo provided materially false information while applying for a 
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan that he obtained on behalf of Kremkov 
Industries, LLC, a business he organized. (Doc. 1 at 2-4).   
 
1 Mr. Torjagbo’s preliminary motion to suppress statements is docketed as entry 
number 44.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 1 of 7

 
 
2 
 
The indictment was issued on May 10, 2022. (Doc. 1).  Two days later, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agents Caruana and Pressley arrested Mr. 
Torjagbo on a warrant issued in connection with the indictment.   
 
The agents questioned Mr. Torjagbo after arresting him.2  Agent Caruana 
read Miranda warnings to Mr. Torjagbo at the inception of the recording.  The 
questioning addressed a range of topics pertaining to Mr. Torjagbo, the PPP loan 
application, the formation and operation of Kremkov Industries, Mr. Torjagbo’s 
expenditures after obtaining the PPP loan, the formation of Flying Jack Freight and 
Logistics, activities conducted by and through Flying Jack Freight and Logistics, 
an income tax return that Mr. Torjagbo filed, and items of the property that the 
Government was seizing.   
 
During the questioning, Agent Caruana asked Mr. Torjagbo to tell him the 
maximum number of employees Kremkov had at any one time.  Mr. Torjagbo 
indicated an unwillingness to answer the question several times, but Agent 
Caruana induced Mr. Torjagbo to give him an answer by telling Mr. Jackson that 
he would not lock him into the answer.  Mr. Torjagbo invoked and maintained his 
 
2 The questioning was recorded, but it is apparent that some amount of discussion 
leading up to that, such as about the possibility of benefitting by cooperating with 
the agents, was not recorded.   
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 2 of 7

 
 
3 
right to remain silent regarding how much money he had paid to Kremkov’s 
employees, Kremkov’s earnings, and where he had obtained a certain employee list 
that he provided to JPMorgan Chase Bank in connection with the PPP loan 
application.  During the interrogation, Agent Caruana also told Mr. Torjagbo that 
he guaranteed that any attorney Mr. Torjagbo could speak to, whether retained or 
appointed, would tell him that the best way to help himself was to be cooperative 
with the agents and truthfully answer their questions. 
The Fifth Amendment provides, in part, that “[n]o person . . . shall be 
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const., Amend. V.  
The Sixth Amendment provides for a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. 
U.S. Const., Amend. VI.  In light of the inherently compelling pressures of the 
custodial setting, the Supreme Court held in Miranda v . Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 
467-473 (1966), that before a person in custody is interrogated, he must first be 
informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent, that 
anything he says can and will be used against him in court, that he has the right to 
consult with an attorney, that he has the right to have an attorney present with him 
during any questioning, and that an attorney will be appointed to represent him if 
he is unable to pay for one. Minnesota v. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1143 (1984); 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 3 of 7

 
 
4 
accord, J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 2401 (2011).   
Admissibility of a defendant’s statements made while in custody and subject 
to interrogation depends upon whether the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and 
intelligently waived his Miranda rights and whether he rendered the statements 
voluntarily. Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1537-1538 (11th Cir. 1988).  The 
determination of whether a defendant has rendered a knowing, intelligent, and 
voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights involves two distinct dimensions: 
First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the 
sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than 
intimidation, coercion, or deception.  Second, the waiver must have 
been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being 
abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.  Only 
if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation 
reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of 
comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights 
have been waived. 
 
United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294, 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moran v. 
Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)).  The Government bears the burden of 
proving that the defendant validly waived his Miranda rights. Berghuis v. 
Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 383 (2010).  When the defendant challenges the 
voluntariness of a statement attributed to him, the Government bears the burden of 
proving by preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntary. United 
States v. Louis, 157 Fed. Appx. 165, 169 (11th Cir. 2005). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 4 of 7

 
 
5 
Mr. Torjagbo posits that statements that Agent Caruana elicited from him 
regarding Kremkov’s number of employees should not be admitted at trial, because 
they were elicited in violation of his Miranda rights and because the statements 
were not rendered voluntarily.  At least a portion of the interrogation is also 
tainted by Agent Caruana’s assertion to Mr. Torjagbo that a defense attorney 
would tell him that he should be cooperative with the agents in their questioning of 
him.   
Mr. Torjagbo asks the Court to hold a hearing to determine whether the 
statements he made during the interrogation were rendered voluntarily and whether 
any of the statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.  Mr. 
Torjagbo further moves the Court to suppress from admission at trial any 
statements unlawfully obtained along with any evidence the Government may have 
derived as fruit of those statements. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 
(1963).  
WHEREFORE, Mr. Torjagbo requests that this motion be granted. 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 5 of 7

 
 
6 
DATED: This 10th day of May, 2024.  
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
S/ Kendal D. Silas                   
KENDAL SILAS 
State Bar No. 645959 
Attorney for CARL TORJAGBO 
 
Federal Defender Program, Inc. 
101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 1500 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
404/688-7530 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 6 of 7

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Amended 
Motion to Suppress Statements, formatted in Times New Roman 14-pt., upon: 
John Russell Phillips, Esq. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Federal Courthouse, Ste. 600 
75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W. 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
 
by electronically filing the same through the Court’s ECF system. 
 
Dated:  This 10th day of May, 2024. 
 
 
s/ Kendal D. Silas                   
KENDAL SILAS, Esq. 
Attorney for CARL TORJAGBO 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 88     Filed 05/10/24     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.88.0.pdf

Size

139,192 bytes

SHA-256

d3b8186b870e5cba60eef3e61936ba0381cad42241551619f0ae2b771f285486

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.88.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)