Exhibit 3: Final instructions as given to the jury — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 227-3, 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. 227-3 · 2025-07-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

COURT’S 
EXHIBIT 3 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 1 of 20

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO 
CRIMINAL ACTION NUMBER 
1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
JURY INSTRUCTIONS 
Members of the Jury: 
It’s my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding 
this case.  After I’ve completed these instructions, the parties will have an 
opportunity to make their closing arguments.  After that, I will have one or two 
additional instructions and you will then go to the jury room and begin your 
discussions – what we call your deliberations. 
You must decide whether the Government has proved the specific facts 
necessary to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented here. You must 
not be influenced in any way by either sympathy for or prejudice against the 
Defendant or the Government.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 2 of 20

2 
 
You must follow the law as I explain it—even if you do not agree with the 
law—and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You must not single 
out or disregard any of the Court’s instructions on the law.  
The indictment or formal charge against a defendant isn’t evidence of guilt. 
The law presumes every defendant is innocent. The Defendant does not have to 
prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government must prove 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the Defendant 
not guilty. 
The Government’s burden of proof is heavy, but it doesn’t have to prove a 
Defendant’s guilt beyond all possible doubt. The Government’s proof only has to 
exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant’s guilt.  
A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common 
sense after you’ve carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case.  
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof so convincing that you would 
be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most important of your 
own affairs. If you are convinced that the Defendant has been proved guilty 
beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 3 of 20

3 
 
As I said before, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted 
in the case. Evidence includes the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits 
admitted. But anything the lawyers say is not evidence and isn’t binding on you. 
I’ll remind you that sometimes the parties have agreed that certain facts are 
true.  These are the stipulations that we’ve already discussed.  You must treat these 
facts as proved for this case. 
You shouldn’t assume from anything I’ve said that I have any opinion about 
any factual issue in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you 
should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own 
decision about the facts.  
Your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence is what matters. 
 In considering the evidence you may use reasoning and common sense to 
make deductions and reach conclusions. You shouldn’t be concerned about 
whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.  
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has 
actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 4 of 20

4 
 
“Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances that 
tend to prove or disprove a fact. There’s no legal difference in the weight you may 
give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. 
When I say you must consider all the evidence, I don’t mean that you must 
accept all the evidence as true or accurate. You should decide whether you believe 
what each witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making 
that decision you may believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in part. The 
number of witnesses testifying concerning a particular point doesn’t necessarily 
matter.  
To decide whether you believe any witness I suggest that you ask yourself 
a few questions: 
• Did the witness impress you as one who was telling the truth? 
• Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth? 
• Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? 
• Did the witness seem to have a good memory? 
• Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to accurately 
observe the things he or she testified about? 
• Did the witness appear to understand the questions clearly and 
answer them directly? 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 5 of 20

5 
 
• Did the witness’s testimony differ from other testimony or other 
evidence? 
You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness 
testified falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that 
at some other time a witness said or did something, or didn’t say or do something, 
that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial.  
But keep in mind that a simple mistake doesn’t mean a witness wasn’t 
telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some 
things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated something, you 
must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in memory or an 
intentional deception. The significance of the misstatement may depend on 
whether the misstatement was about an important fact or about an unimportant 
detail. 
A defendant has a right not to testify. But since the Defendant did testify, 
you should decide whether you believe the Defendant’s testimony in the same 
way as that of any other witness.   
If the Government offers evidence that a Defendant made a statement or 
admission to someone after being arrested or detained, you must consider that 
evidence with caution and great care. You must decide for yourself (1) whether 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 6 of 20

6 
 
the Defendant made the statement, and (2) if so, how much weight to give to it. To 
make these decisions, you must consider all the evidence about the statement – 
including the circumstances under which it was made. 
The indictment charges ten separate crimes, called “counts,” against the 
Defendant. Each count has a number. You’ll be given a copy of the indictment to 
refer to during your deliberations. Count 1 charges the Defendant with bank fraud. 
Counts 2 and 3 charge the Defendant with wire fraud. Counts 4 through 6 charge 
the Defendant with concealment money laundering, and Counts 7 through 10 
charge the Defendant with transactional money laundering. I will explain the law 
governing those substantive offenses in a moment.    
Where a statute specifies multiple alternative ways in which an offense may 
be committed, the indictment may allege the multiple ways in the conjunctive, that 
is, by using the word “and.” If only one of the alternatives is proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that is sufficient for conviction, so long as you agree 
unanimously as to that alternative.   
You’ll see that the indictment charges that a crime was committed “on or 
about” a certain date. The Government doesn’t have to prove that the offense 
occurred on an exact date. The Government only has to prove beyond a reasonable 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 7 of 20

7 
 
doubt that the crime was committed on a date reasonably close to the date alleged. 
Count 1 charges the Defendant with bank fraud.  It’s a federal crime to carry 
out or attempt to carry out a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or to get 
money or property owned or controlled by a financial institution by using false 
pretenses, representations, or promises. 
The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following 
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(1) 
the Defendant knowingly carried out or attempted to carry out 
a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or to get money, 
assets, or other property from a financial institution, by using 
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises 
about a material fact; 
(2) 
the false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises 
were material; 
(3) 
the Defendant intended to defraud the financial institution; and 
(4) 
the financial institution was federally insured. 
A “scheme to defraud” includes any plan or course of action intended to 
deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by using false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises relating to a material fact. 
A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a 
material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or makes with reckless indifference 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 8 of 20

8 
 
as to the truth and makes with intent to defraud. A statement or representation 
may be “false” or “fraudulent” when it’s a half truth or effectively conceals a 
material fact and is made with the intent to defraud. 
A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to 
decide whether to do or not do something. A fact is “material” if it has the capacity 
or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. It doesn’t matter whether the 
decision-maker actually relied on the statement or knew or should have known 
that the statement was false. 
To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific 
intent to use false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to obtain 
the victim’s money or property. Proving intent to defraud does not require proof 
that the Defendant acted with the intent to leave the victim economically worse 
off. 
The Government doesn’t have to prove all the details alleged in the 
indictment about the precise nature and purpose of the scheme. It also doesn’t 
have to prove that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone. 
What must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Defendant knowingly 
attempted or carried out a scheme substantially similar to the one alleged in the 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 9 of 20

9 
 
indictment. 
Counts 2 and 3 charge the Defendant with wire fraud.  It’s a federal crime 
to use interstate wire communications to carry out a scheme to defraud someone 
else. 
The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following 
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(1) 
the Defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme 
to defraud someone by using false or fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, or promises; 
(2) 
the false pretenses, representations, or promises were about a 
material fact; 
(3) 
the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and 
(4) 
the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire 
some communication in interstate commerce to help carry out 
the scheme to defraud. 
The word “knowingly” means that an act was done voluntarily and 
intentionally and not because of a mistake or by accident. 
A “scheme to defraud” means any plan or course of action intended to 
deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by using false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations, or promises. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 10 of 20

10 
 
A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a 
material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or makes with reckless indifference 
to the truth, and makes with the intent to defraud. 
A statement or representation may be “false” or “fraudulent” when it is a 
half-truth, or effectively conceals a material fact, and is made with the intent to 
defraud. 
A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to 
decide whether to do or not do something. 
A fact is “material” if it has the capacity or natural tendency to influence a 
person’s decision. It doesn’t matter whether the decision-maker actually relied on 
the statement or knew or should have known that the statement was false. 
To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific 
intent to use false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to obtain 
the victim’s money or property. Proving intent to defraud does not require proof 
that the Defendant acted with the intent to leave the victim economically worse 
off. 
The Government does not have to prove all the details alleged in the 
indictment about the precise nature and purpose of the scheme. It also doesn’t 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 11 of 20

11 
 
have to prove that the material transmitted by interstate wire was itself false or 
fraudulent; or that using the wire was intended as the specific or exclusive means 
of carrying out the alleged fraud; or that the Defendant personally made the 
transmission over the wire. And it doesn’t have to prove that the alleged scheme 
actually succeeded in defrauding anyone. 
To “use” interstate wire communications is to act so that something would 
normally be sent through wire communications in the normal course of business. 
Each separate use of the interstate wire communications as part of the 
scheme to defraud is a separate crime.  
As I said before, Counts 4 through 6 charge the Defendant with concealment 
money laundering.  It’s a federal crime to knowingly engage in certain kinds of 
financial transactions commonly known as money laundering. 
The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following 
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(1) the Defendant knowingly conducted or tried to conduct financial 
transactions; 
 
(2) the Defendant knew that the money or property involved in the 
transaction were the proceeds of some kind of unlawful activity; 
 
(3)  money or property did come from an unlawful activity, 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 12 of 20

12 
 
specifically bank fraud or wire fraud; and 
 
(4) the Defendant knew that the transaction was designed, in whole 
or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, 
ownership, or the control of the proceeds. 
 
To “conduct a transaction” means to start or finish a transaction, or to 
participate in a transaction at any point. 
A “transaction” means a purchase, sale, loan, promise, gift, transfer, 
delivery, or other disposition of money or property. A transaction with a financial 
institution also includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, 
exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, use of a safe deposit box, or 
purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary 
instrument. 
A “financial transaction” means – 
• a transaction that in any way or to any degree affects interstate or 
foreign commerce by sending or moving money by wire or other 
means; or 
• a transaction that in any way or to any degree affects interstate or 
foreign commerce by involving one or more “monetary 
instruments.” The phrase “monetary instruments” includes coins 
or currency of any country, travelers or personal checks, bank 
checks or money orders, or investment securities or negotiable 
instruments in a form that allows ownership to transfer on 
delivery; or  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 13 of 20

13 
 
• a transaction that in any way or to any degree affects interstate or 
foreign commerce by involving the transfer of title to any real 
property, vehicle, vessel or aircraft; or 
• a transaction involving the use of a financial institution that is 
involved in interstate or foreign commerce, or whose activities 
affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree. The 
phrase “financial institution” includes a bank insured by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 
“Interstate or foreign commerce” means trade and other business activity 
between people or businesses in at least two states or between people or businesses 
in the United States and people or businesses outside the United States. 
To know “that the money or property involved in the transaction came from 
some kind of unlawful activity” is to know that the money or property came from 
an activity that’s a felony under state, Federal, or foreign law. 
The term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or 
retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including 
the gross receipts of the activity. 
The phrase “specified unlawful activity” means bank fraud or wire fraud, 
which I have already explained to you.  
Again, Counts 7 through 10 charge the Defendant with transactional money 
laundering.  It’s a federal crime for anyone to engage in certain kinds of financial 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 14 of 20

14 
 
transactions commonly known as money laundering. 
The Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following 
are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(1) the Defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a 
monetary transaction; 
 
(2) the Defendant knew the transaction involved property or funds 
that were the proceeds of some criminal activity; 
 
(3) the property had a value of more than $10,000; 
 
(4) the property was in fact proceeds of bank fraud or wire fraud; and 
 
(5) the transaction took place in the United States. 
 
The term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, 
exchange of funds or a monetary instrument by, through, or to a financial 
institution in a way that affects interstate commerce.  
A “financial institution” means a bank insured by the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 
The term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or 
retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including 
the gross receipts of the activity. 
It doesn’t matter whether the Defendant knew the precise nature of the 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 15 of 20

15 
 
crime or that the property came from committing bank fraud or wire fraud. But 
the Government must prove that the Defendant knew that the property involved 
in the monetary transaction was obtained or derived from committing some crime. 
Also it doesn’t matter whether all the property involved was derived from 
a crime. The Government only has to prove that more than $10,000 worth of the 
property was obtained or derived from committing a crime. 
It’s possible to prove the Defendant guilty of a crime even without evidence 
that the Defendant personally performed every act charged. 
Ordinarily, any act a person can do may be done by directing another 
person, or “agent.” Or it may be done by acting with or under the direction of 
others. 
A Defendant “aids and abets” a person if the Defendant intentionally joins 
with the person to commit a crime. 
A Defendant is criminally responsible for the acts of another person if the 
Defendant aids and abets the other person. A Defendant is also responsible if the 
Defendant willfully directs or authorizes the acts of an agent, employee, or other 
associate.  
But finding that a Defendant is criminally responsible for the acts of another 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 16 of 20

16 
 
person requires proof that the Defendant intentionally associated with or 
participated in the crime—not just proof that the Defendant was simply present at 
the scene of a crime or knew about it. 
In other words, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
Defendant was a willful participant and not merely a knowing spectator. 
You heard evidence concerning two Social Security numbers allegedly 
acquired by the Defendant prior to the offenses charged in the indictment. As I 
mentioned before, you must not consider this evidence to decide if the Defendant 
engaged in the activity alleged in the indictment. But you may consider this 
evidence to decide whether:  
• the Defendant had the state of mind or intent necessary to commit 
the crime charged in the indictment;  
 
• the Defendant had a motive or the opportunity to commit the acts 
charged in the indictment;  
 
• the Defendant acted according to a plan or in preparation to commit 
a crime; or  
 
•the Defendant committed the acts charged in the indictment by 
accident or mistake 
 
“Good faith” is a complete defense to a charge that requires intent to 
defraud. A defendant isn’t required to prove good faith. The Government must 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 17 of 20

17 
 
prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt. 
An honestly held opinion or an honestly formed belief cannot be fraudulent 
intent – even if the opinion or belief is mistaken. Similarly, evidence of a mistake 
in judgment, an error in management, or carelessness can’t establish fraudulent 
intent. 
But an honest belief that a business venture would ultimately succeed 
doesn’t constitute good faith if the Defendant intended to deceive others by 
making representations the Defendant knew to be false or fraudulent. 
Each count of the indictment charges a separate crime. You must consider 
each crime and the evidence relating to it separately. If you find the Defendant 
guilty or not guilty of one crime, that must not affect your verdict for any other 
crime. 
I caution you that the Defendant is on trial only for the specific crimes 
charged in the indictment. You’re here to determine from the evidence in this case 
whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of those specific crimes. 
You must never consider punishment in any way to decide whether the 
Defendant is guilty. If you find the Defendant guilty, the punishment is for the 
Judge alone to decide later. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 18 of 20

18 
 
You’ve been permitted to take notes during the trial. Some of you have taken 
advantage of that opportunity. You must use your notes only as a memory aid 
during deliberations. You must not give your notes priority over your 
independent recollection of the evidence. And you must not allow yourself to be 
unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. I emphasize that notes are not 
entitled to any greater weight than your memories or impressions about the 
testimony. 
Your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous—in other 
words, you must all agree. Your deliberations are secret, and you’ll never have to 
explain your verdict to anyone. 
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after fully 
considering the evidence with the other jurors. So you must discuss the case with 
one another and try to reach an agreement. While you’re discussing the case, don’t 
hesitate to reexamine your own opinion and change your mind if you become 
convinced that you were wrong. But don’t give up your honest beliefs just because 
others think differently or because you simply want to get the case over with. 
Remember that, in a very real way, you’re judges—judges of the facts. Your 
only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 19 of 20

19 
 
When you get to the jury room, choose one of your members to act as 
foreperson. The foreperson will direct your deliberations and will speak for you 
in court. 
A verdict form has been prepared for your convenience. 
[Explain verdict] 
Take the verdict form with you to the jury room. When you’ve all agreed on 
the verdict, your foreperson must fill in the form, sign it, date it, and carry it. Then 
you’ll return it to the courtroom. 
If you wish to communicate with me at any time, please write down your 
message or question and give it to the marshal. The marshal will bring it to me and 
I’ll respond as promptly as possible—either in writing or by talking to you in the 
courtroom. But I caution you not to tell me how many jurors have voted one way 
or the other at that time. 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 227-3     Filed 07/25/25     Page 20 of 20

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.227.3.pdf

Size

194,567 bytes

SHA-256

227ed4b2aa671eed0282da51be4d9508e41d2b3218858d5a14ac33ee0c1cf23a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.227.3.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)