Order denying 61 Motion for Interlocutory Sale as to Carl Delano Torjagbo (1) — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 190, 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. 190 · 2025-06-10 · 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 a/k/a Karl 
Lucius Delano, 
 
Defendant. 
 
________________________________/ 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Defendant is charged with several counts of fraud and money 
laundering arising from an alleged scheme to wrongfully obtain millions 
of dollars from the government.  (Dkt. 180.)  He has been in federal 
custody since 2022, pleads not guilty, and is set to stand trial next month.  
(Dkts. 8; 11; 38; 63; 113; 152; 176; 186.)  The United States moves to sell 
three real estate properties listed in the forfeiture provision of 
Defendant’s indictment and to hold the net proceeds of those sales 
pending resolution of this case.  (Dkt. 61.)  The Court held an evidentiary 
hearing on the United States’s motion late last year, after which the 
parties filed supplemental briefs.  (Dkts. 167; 171; 177.)  Having 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 190     Filed 06/10/25     Page 1 of 5

 
2
considered the parties’ submissions and the totality of the record, the 
Court denies the United States’s motion. 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(7) says, “[a]t any time 
before entry of a final forfeiture order, the court, in accordance with 
Supplemental Rule G(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may 
order the interlocutory sale of property alleged to be forfeitable.”  Fed. R. 
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(7).  Under Supplemental Rule G(7), “the court may order 
all or part of the property sold” if (1) “the property is perishable or at risk 
of deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending 
the action,” (2) “the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is 
disproportionate to its fair market value,” (3) “the property is subject to 
a mortgage or to taxes on which the owner is in default,” or (4) “the court 
finds other good cause.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G(7)(b)(i).  Even if these 
criteria are met, the court may exercise its “considerable discretion” and 
decline to order an interlocutory sale.  United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 
676, 685 (6th Cir. 2017); see United States v. Real Props., 2011 WL 
5975820, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 28, 2011) (“Rule G(7) affords the district 
court a wide degree of latitude in making the decision of whether or not 
to order interlocutory sale.”); E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. v. M/V Donna J. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 190     Filed 06/10/25     Page 2 of 5

 
3
Bouchard, 612 F. Supp. 3d 640, 644 (E.D. La. 2020) (finding an analogous 
Supplemental Rule “does not require an interlocutory sale” even if 
“the criteria is met,” and noting “the question of whether an interlocutory 
sale is appropriate is left to the court’s discretion”).  The United States 
bears the burden to show a sale is warranted.  United States v. Rose, 2022 
WL 3083582, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2022); (Dkt. 167 at 7).           
The United States claims an interlocutory sale is appropriate here 
because one of the properties “has been targeted for adverse possession 
by squatters,” a portion of the property has “fall[en] into a state of decay,” 
the homeowners association (“HOA”) is paying to maintain other portions 
of the property, and all three properties are subject to taxes on which 
Defendant is in default.  (Dkt. 171 at 4–5.)  The Court rejects these 
arguments.  There is no evidence of any current or imminent squatting.  
(See Dkt. 167 at 27–28 (potential squatters were “chase[d] . . . away” in 
2024), 49, 55 (police have a “criminal trespass letter” and may arrest 
anyone seen on the property).)  The United States has not shown the 
property is decaying enough to warrant an involuntary pre-trial sale.  
(See Dkts. 139-1 (photograph of swimming pool); 167 at 14–16 (swimming 
pool is “green and full of debris” but is “covered” and doesn’t “smell”); see 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 190     Filed 06/10/25     Page 3 of 5

 
4
also Dkts. 140-1 (photograph of property front); 140-2 (same); 167 at 22, 
36 (“driveway and sidewalks” haven’t been “power washed” and some 
greenery is “overgrown,” but, overall, “[t]he front looks okay”).)  And 
Defendant’s unpaid taxes and HOA bills (roughly $90,000) are a fraction 
of the properties’ total value (between $2 million and $3 million) and are 
unlikely to increase substantially before Defendant is tried and 
potentially sentenced.  (See 167 at 27 (unpaid HOA bills are $10,720), 62–
66 (unpaid taxes are $77,992); see also Dkts. 139-6 (one property has a 
fair market value of $84,150); 167 at 38, 44 (another property has no 
mortgage and listed for $2.6 million or $2.8 million in 2021).)  Indeed, 
with Defendant’s trial set to occur next month, there is no evidence any 
of the problems identified by the United States—squatting, property 
decay, or unpaid bills—will significantly worsen before this case 
concludes.  See United States v. Maye, 2011 WL 2533020, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. 
June 24, 2011) (declining to order an interlocutory sale because, “[w]ith 
a trial in the matter likely to occur within the next several months, any 
continued diminution in the value of the [property] will be negligible in 
relation to the current value of the [property]”); United States v. 
Boscarino, 2012 WL 254129, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2012) (declining to 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 190     Filed 06/10/25     Page 4 of 5

 
5
order an interlocutory sale because “it does not appear that significant 
time will pass until the trial date, limiting the additional depreciation 
and costs”).   
For all these reasons, the Court in its discretion DENIES the 
United States’s Motion for Interlocutory Sale (Dkt. 61).         
SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2025. 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
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 190     Filed 06/10/25     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.190.0.pdf

Size

132,293 bytes

SHA-256

af117a439292b7f530194fcd4c24d73864c0304044dc15b85c19dbc009e89423

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.190.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)