Response as to Carl Delano Torjagbo filed by USA re: 163 Amended Motion in Limine for Trial — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 165, 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. 165 · 2025-02-11 · 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 TORJAGBO 
Criminal Indictment 
 
No. 1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S  
AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE 
The United States of America, by its counsel, Richard S. Moultrie, Jr., Acting 
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Kelly K. Connors 
and Nicholas L. Evert, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby files its response 
to Defendant Carl Torjagbo’s amended motion in limine. (Doc. 163). 
    
I. 
The Court should deny Torjagbo’s request to limit bank records to 
only the transactions identified in the Indictment. 
Torjagbo seeks to cabin the government’s presentation to only the financial 
transactions explicitly identified in the Indictment. He argues that any records 
falling outside the dates of the Indictment are irrelevant, and even if relevant, they 
are unfairly prejudicial. (Id. at 5-6). The Court should deny this exceptionally 
narrow and unsupported view of relevancy.  
The Superseding Indictment alleges that Torjagbo committed bank fraud and 
other offenses related to a PPP loan that he obtained in the name of his sham 
company, Kremkov Industries, LLC. (Doc. 110 at 1-4). In this loan application, 
Torjagbo falsely alleged that he employed 493 people in the U.S. and had 
monthly payroll over $3.8 million. He also certified that Kremkov Industries had 
been in operation since February 15, 2020, more specifically since December 31, 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12 
 
2014. As a result of these lies, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank, N.A. (“Chase Bank”) 
disbursed $9,554,425 in PPP loan proceeds to Kremkov Industries in early 2021. 
The Indictment includes concealment and transactional money laundering 
charges related to transactions using PPP loan fraud proceeds that occurred on 
April 8, 2021, May 28, 2021, August 6, 2021, October 27, 2021, January 24, 2022, 
and March 7, 2022. (Id. at 6-11). 
The Indictment also alleges that Torjagbo filed two fraudulent 2020 U.S. 
individual tax returns. (Id.at 12-13). These returns—one filed under his social 
security number and the other filed under a tax identification number—falsely 
reported wages, withholdings, and losses from Kremkov Industries. Each return 
claimed a tax return of over $3 million.  
Following his arrest in this case, Torjagbo was interviewed by FBI Special 
Agent Scott Carauna. (Doc. 145, Transcript of FBI Interview dated May 12, 2022).1 
During this interview, he made the following statements about Kremkov 
Industries and its employees and about his financial circumstances: 
• Kremkov Industries had been in business since 2014 or 2015. (Tr. at 46). 
• Kremkov Industries was a mining business in Africa, most employees 
resided in Africa, and there were no U.S. business operations. (Tr. at 11-
13, 46-48). 
• Kremkov Industries was “lucrative.” (Tr. at 13). 
• The loan for Kremkov Industries was based on “how much you 
actually make” and not on employees’ payroll. (Tr. at 23-25). 
 
1 The transcript erroneously identifies 2024 as the year of the interview. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12 
 
• Bank accounts for Kremkov Industries are foreign accounts, and he 
reported how much he made on the foreign accounts for the loan 
application. (Tr. at 24-25). 
• His 2020 tax returns were based on losses for Kremkov Industries and a 
tax credit for oil and mining companies. (Tr. at 48-51). 
• Most of his property, including his house and cars, were purchased 
with his own money and not PPP loan proceeds. (Tr. at 9-10). 
Torjagbo broadly requests that the Court exclude “banking records and any 
evidence of personal financial or commercial transactions that are not related to 
the transactions referenced in the indictment.” (Doc. 163 at 5). He fails to identify 
any specific transactions, leaving the Court and the government to only guess 
what evidence he seeks to exclude. Moreover, Torjagbo fails to provide any 
explanation for why these records are irrelevant to the charges in the case, 
making only a conclusory statement that such records are unrelated to the 
Indictment. (See Doc. 163 at 5). For these reasons alone, the Court should deny 
the request. 
But even if the Court considers Torjagbo’s sweeping request to exclude these 
records, the Court should deny his motion. Torjagbo provides no support for his 
contention that bank records that are not directly related to the charges in the 
Indictment are excludable. And the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that this 
contention is incorrect. Evidence that is “inextricably intertwined with the 
evidence regarding the charged offense[s]” is admissible. United States v. 
Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825, 869 (11th Cir. 1995). “Evidence[,] not part of the crime[s] 
charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12 
 
set-up of the crime[s] is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances 
with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the 
crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United 
States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Thus, the 
Court should decline to exclude any bank records solely because they allegedly 
do not relate to the specific charges in the Indictment. 
 The government submits, however, that these records are relevant to all of 
the charges in the Indictment. To prove that Torjagbo committed bank fraud 
related to the PPP loan application and wire fraud related to the fraudulent tax 
returns, the government will have to prove, among other elements, that Torjagbo 
made material misrepresentations.2 These misrepresentations concern Torjagbo’s 
statements about Kremkov Industries, including how long Kremkov was in 
business, how many employees it had, that those employees were located in the 
U.S., and that wages were paid to employees. Torjagbo’s bank records may be 
used to establish that he did not receive any income from Kremkov Industries 
and that he did not pay any wages to employees in the U.S. for Kremkov 
Industries, thus showing that he made false representations on his PPP 
application. Similarly, these records may be used to establish that Torjagbo also 
did not earn any wages from Kremkov Industries and that his allegations of 
millions of dollars submitted in federal tax withholdings were false. In addition, 
while the government is unaware of Torjagbo’s exact defense strategy, during his 
custodial interview, Torjagbo asserted that his PPP loan amount was based on 
 
2 See Eleventh Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal), Offense Instruction Nos. 51 
(Wire Fraud) and 52 (Bank Fraud). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12 
 
how much Kremkov Industries made in earnings, rather than on purported 
payroll. Torjagbo’s bank records may be used to counter this defense. 
Torjagbo asserts that records predating his submissions of the two fraudulent 
tax returns on February 13, 2021, and predating his PPP loan application on 
February 21, 2021, are irrelevant. (Doc. 163 at 5). This assertion ignores that the 
false tax returns are for 2020 and include allegations of wages and losses for 
Kremkov Industries in tax year 2020. It further ignores that Torjagbo made 
explicit representations about Kremkov Industries, including that the company 
had been in operation since December 31, 2014. Again, Torjagbo’s bank records, 
including records before February 13, 2021, are relevant to establish the falsity of 
Torjagbo’s statements about Kremkov Industries and the ability to pay $3.8 
million per month in payroll to U.S. employees. The earlier bank records are also 
relevant to establish motive and intent since they show that Torjagbo had a much 
different financial situation before he obtained millions of dollars in government 
funds.3 And they refute any notion that Torjagbo was funneling money from 
foreign bank accounts held by Kremkov Industries.  
In conclusory fashion, Torjagbo claims that even if the bank records are 
relevant, their probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice and that these 
records would confuse the jury.4 For the same reasons that these records are 
 
3 By pleading not guilty, Torjagbo has placed his knowledge and intent at 
issue, and the bank records, including records that predate the offenses, are 
relevant to Torjagbo’s intent, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake, and lack of 
accident. United States v. Colston, 4 F.4th 1179, 1192 (11th Cir. 2021) (“Colston 
pleaded not guilty, so her intent was a material issue at the trial”). 
4 “The term ‘unfair prejudice,’ as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the 
capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12 
 
relevant, they are highly probative because these bank records go to the heart of 
the matter—that Torjagbo made material misrepresentations to Chase Bank and 
to the IRS to obtain millions of dollars in fraud proceeds that he then spent. The 
highly probative nature of the records simply is not outweighed by any risk of 
undue prejudice, and indeed, there is minimal risk because the jury is unlikely to 
be confused by this evidence since Torjagbo’s bank records are closely tethered 
to the allegations in the Indictment. 
Torjagbo identifies only one specific transaction that he alleges would 
prejudice him—a purchase at Victoria’s Secret. (Doc. 163 at 6). He argues that a 
single purchase at a store that sells lingerie would inflame the jury and lead to 
unfair prejudice. Victoria’s Secret is a national retailer of lingerie and other 
clothing items. The fact that it sells lingerie is hardly inflammatory or likely to 
“lure the factfinder into declaring guilt,” particularly since this retailer has 
storefronts in malls and shopping centers throughout the country. The Court 
should deny Torjagbo’s request to excise this single transaction from admissible 
bank records. 
 
II. 
The Court should deny Torjagbo’s other requests to exclude records 
and evidence. 
Torjagbo makes several other requests to exclude evidence, primarily arguing 
that the information is prejudicial. The government addresses each request 
below.  
 
 
declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.” 
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997).  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12 
 
Exotic Dancer and Text Messages 
Torjagbo seeks to exclude any evidence that he “associated with exotic 
dancers,” specifically Claudia. During Torjagbo’s custodial interview, he 
admitted to giving approximately $2,000 to Claudia to help her close on a house. 
(Tr. at 29-30). When asked what Claudia’s profession was, Torjagbo stated that 
she was an exotic dancer. (Tr. at 30). The fact that Claudia was not a miner or 
other employee of Kremkov Industries is relevant. As alleged in the Indictment, 
Torjagbo certified that he would only use the PPP loan funds for PPP-approved 
purposes. At trial, the government will present evidence that he did not use the 
funds for approved purposes, such as payroll for employees. That Torjagbo used 
PPP funds to pay Claudia, who is an exotic dancer rather than an employee of 
Kremkov Industries, is relevant and establishes motive and intent for obtaining 
the fraud proceeds. Rather than using the funds for a permissible purpose, 
Torjagbo used them to fund his lifestyle, purchase luxury items, and gift 
thousands of dollars to individuals who were not employees. Any potential 
prejudice that a juror may have toward exotic dancers does not substantially 
outweigh the highly probative value. The Court should deny the request to 
exclude any mention of Claudia’s profession.5 
Torjagbo further asserts that “[t]ext messaging with other persons in Mr. 
Torjagbo’s cell phone raises similar concerns.” (Doc. 163 at 7). He fails to explain 
what specific text messages he is referring to, and what specific concerns these 
 
5 In the event that the Court determines that there is a risk of undue prejudice 
that may outweigh the probative value, the government requests an opportunity 
to only redact the word “exotic” from the transcript and audio recording because 
Claudia’s profession as a dancer is relevant. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12 
 
text messages raise. Without more information about what specific messages he 
is referring to, or what “similar” concerns they raise, the government and the 
Court cannot meaningfully address this argument. 
Equifax and Transunion credit reports 
At this time, the government does not anticipate seeking admission of credit 
reports from Equifax or Transunion. The government requests that the Court 
defer the request to exclude these reports and take up the matter if the 
government advises that it may seek admission. 
Gotham Plastic Surgery 
Torjagbo seeks exclusion of records from Gotham Plastic Surgery for 
treatment from approximately April through June 2021. (Doc. 163 at 8). Torjagbo 
alleges that these records are irrelevant and “do[] not make any fact of 
consequence to determining this action more probable.” (Id.). He is mistaken. As 
previously indicated, Torjagbo’s use of fraud proceeds is highly relevant to the 
issues of motive and intent.6 The highly probative value of his expenditures after 
receiving millions of dollars in PPP funds and from a tax refund is not 
outweighed by any alleged risk of prejudice. Furthermore, that he spent the 
money he received on plastic surgery, rather than employee payroll, indicates 
that Torjagbo lied in his PPP application. See United States v. McClellon, No. 2:22-
CR-00073-LK, 2023 WL 9002865, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 28, 2023) (evidence that 
the defendant “did not spend the PPP funds on payroll tends to show that he 
lied on his PPP loan applications to secure those funds”). 
 
6 “[M]otive is always relevant in a criminal case, even if it is not an element of 
the crime. And with financial crimes, the more money, the more motive.” United 
States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 843 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12 
 
2014 Lamborghini Aventador 
Torjagbo seeks to exclude evidence that he purchased a 2014 Lamborghini on 
April 23, 2022, after receiving the PPP loan funds and IRS tax refund. (Doc. 163 at 
8-9). Although the Indictment does not allege a specific money laundering 
transaction related to this purchase, like the Gotham Plastic Surgery records and 
other records of expenditures, the Lamborghini purchase is relevant and highly 
probative of motive and intent to defraud. The purchase price for the 
Lamborghini was approximately $332,999.80.  
The district court ha[s] broad discretion to admit the Government’s 
“wealth evidence” so long as it aid[s] in proving or disproving a fact in 
issue. Conversely, the court’s discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 
403 is limited. Evidence may be excluded only when its probative value is 
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Because 
exclusion under Rule 403 is so drastic a remedy, [the Eleventh Circuit has] 
cautioned that the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility.  
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1272 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal citations and 
quotation marks omitted).  
Numerous courts have found that evidence of extravagant purchases is 
admissible as relevant to a defendant’s motive. See United States v. Pate, 853 F. 
App’x 430, 436 (11th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (evidence of defendant purchasing 
vehicle, diamonds, and a Rolex watch was relevant to show defendant’s motive 
for committing fraud, which was making money to finance extravagant 
purchases for herself and her family members); United States v. Murray, 152 F. 
App’x 492, 494–95 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (evidence of defendant’s lavish 
spending—including that he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on travel, 
dining, and women; frequented strip clubs; and sometimes bought cars for 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12 
 
dancers—was relevant to his motive for defrauding a bank); United States v. 
Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir. 1997) (evidence of defendant’s extravagant 
lifestyle, including his generous patronage of topless bars and ownership of an 
expensive Cadillac, was relevant to his motive for committing tax evasion and to 
showing that he was not unable to pay his tax bills); United States v. Mitchelson, 51 
F.3d 283 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (evidence of lavish spending was at least 
relevant to proving motive). 
Here, as in Pate, Murray, Powell, and Mitchelson, evidence of Torjagbo’s 
purchase of the Lamborghini is relevant to show his motive. However, it is also 
relevant to show that he did not use the PPP funds to pay his employees, and 
therefore lied in his application. See McClellon, 2023 WL 9002865, at *3 (evidence 
that the defendant “did not spend the PPP funds on payroll tends to show that 
he lied on his PPP loan applications to secure those funds”).  
Any prejudice that Torjagbo might suffer from the jury learning about his 
purchase of the Lamborghini is outweighed by this strong probative value. This 
is particularly so because the Lamborghini is but one of several luxury purchases 
that the jury will learn about—Torjagbo does not appear to dispute that the jury 
is entitled to hear about his purchases of a Land Rover, a BMW, and a large 
home in Marietta, Georgia. Accordingly, the evidence of the Lamborghini 
purchase should not be excluded.  
Tax records from 2018 and 2019 
Torjagbo asks the Court to exclude his 2018 and 2019 tax returns, claiming 
that these returns are irrelevant to the charges in the Indictment and prejudicial. 
(Doc. 163 at 9). Importantly, despite Torjagbo’s claim that Kremkov Industries 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12 
 
had been in operation since December 31, 2014, neither his 2018 nor 2019 tax 
returns reflect any losses, wages, or earnings from Kremkov Industries. It was 
not until Torjagbo filed two 2020 tax returns that he included any information 
about Kremkov Industries, despite the length of time that he claimed the 
company was in business, and the information that he provided resulted in a 
fraudulent tax refund of over $3 million due to material misrepresentations 
about federal withholdings and losses. As previously explained, the government 
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Torjagbo made material 
misrepresentations to Chase Bank and to the IRS, and the lack of any tax filings 
in 2018 and 2019 concerning Kremkov Industries is relevant and establishes that 
Torjagbo provided false information about Kremkov to secure the PPP loan and 
to obtain a substantial tax refund. Evidence that he did not claim any earnings or 
losses for Kremkov before filing two 2020 tax returns on February 13, 2021, is 
highly probative of knowledge, intent, motive, and absence of mistake, 
particularly since Torjagbo admitted during his custodial interview that he had 
been filing his own tax returns since college. (Tr. at 51). And Torjagbo’s 
conclusory allegation that any prejudice would arise from admission of the 2018 
and 2019 tax returns does not outweigh the considerable probative value of the 
returns. 
Interlocutory sale of certain properties 
Finally, Torjagbo asks the Court to exclude “any evidence that is the subject of 
the Government’s motion for interlocutory sale of certain properties owned by 
Mr. Torjagbo or FlyingJack Freight and Logistics.” (Doc. 163 at 9). To the extent 
that Torjagbo seeks to exclude evidence that the value of these properties has 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12 
 
fallen during the pendency of this criminal matter or that the properties have 
suffered from decay, damage, or lack of care during the criminal case, the 
government does not intend to present such evidence during its case-in-chief. 
The government will, however, present evidence concerning the purchase of 
these properties, including, but not limited to, the purchase price and tracing of 
the proceeds used to make the purchase. As previously explained, evidence of 
Torjagbo’s expenditures is relevant to the fraud and money laundering charges, 
and information concerning these properties is highly probative of intent and 
motive. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendant Torjagbo’s 
amended motion in limine. 
Respectfully submitted, 
RICHARD S. MOULTRIE, JR. 
Acting United States Attorney 
                      /s/KELLY K. CONNORS 
     Assistant United States Attorney 
  
 
     Georgia Bar No. 504787 
     
  
     Kelly.Connors@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   /s/NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
     Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 693062 
      Nicholas.Evert@usdoj.gov 
 
600 U.S. Courthouse ▪ 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW 
Atlanta, GA 30303 ▪ 404-581-6000 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 165     Filed 02/11/25     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.165.0.pdf

Size

151,493 bytes

SHA-256

d14cc7dff60fde29e719d6707fd66fca7d053ec820ae42bf1bd362fa84eb1fc3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.165.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)