Sentencing Memorandum as to Carl Delano Torjagbo filed by USA — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 256, 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. 256 · 2026-01-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
1 
 
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 
 
Criminal Action No. 
1:22-CR-171-MLB 
 
United States’s Sentencing Memorandum 
The United States of America, by Theodore S. Hertzberg, United States 
Attorney, and Kelly K. Connors and Nicholas L. Evert, Assistant United States 
Attorneys for the Northern District of Georgia, files this Sentencing 
Memorandum. 
Background 
 
Following a weeklong trial, a jury convicted Karl Lucius Delano, formerly 
known as Carl Delano Torjagbo, on ten counts of fraud and money laundering. 
The fraud charges involved two separate schemes – (1) to submit and receive a 
fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan for over $9.5 million based 
on false and fraudulent supporting documents claiming that he operated a 
company called Kremkov Industries, employed 493 people who resided in the 
United States, and paid monthly wages to those employees of more than $3.8 
million, and (2) to submit two fraudulent IRS tax returns, each filed using a 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 1 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
2 
 
different social security number and each claiming a tax refund of over $3 
million based on false earnings, passive losses, and withholdings related to 
Kremkov Industries. As a result of these fraudulent schemes, Mr. Delano 
received a PPP loan from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“JPMC”) for $9,554,425. He 
also received a tax refund check from the IRS for $3,373,441, which he deposited 
into a bank account that he controlled. The IRS did not pay out one of the 
fraudulent tax returns. 
 
After receiving a combined $12,927,866 in PPP and tax fraud proceeds, Mr. 
Delano began moving the funds through a series of financial and monetary 
transactions and using multiple bank accounts. When JPMC realized that the 
PPP loan was fraudulent, it recalled the funds that Mr. Delano had not yet 
removed from the deposit account, $6,554,515. With more than $6 million still in 
hand from his fraud schemes, Mr. Delano purchased multiple luxury items, 
including a $1.6 million home, 2021 Land Rover Range Rover Velar, 2022 BMW 
M850xi, and 2014 Lamborghini Aventador. 
 
The evidence and testimony presented at trial proved beyond a reasonable 
doubt that Mr. Delano was guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, concealment money 
laundering, and transactional money laundering. He is scheduled for sentencing 
on January 27, 2026. 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 2 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
3 
 
Presentence Report 
Defendant’s Factual Disputes 
 
Mr. Delano filed objections to virtually every factual paragraph in the PSR. 
(See PSR at 33-34 (outlining defense objections)). At sentencing, the Court must 
resolve all factual disputes by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States 
v. Aguilar-Ibarra, 740 F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that factual disputes 
must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence). But Mr. Delano’s factual 
disputes lack specificity and clarity, thus leaving the Court to guess what it must 
resolve. See United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that 
a defendant’s factual disputes must be raised with specificity and clarity, or they 
are waived); United States v. Aleman, 832 F.2d 142, 145 (11th Cir. 1987) (same).  
For example, Mr. Delano objects to paragraph 20, which lays out that he 
submitted a PPP loan application for Kremkov Industries, claimed that the 
business had been in operation since December 31, 2014, reported 493 employees, 
and listed a monthly payroll of $3,821,771. At trial, Mr. Delano testified that he 
completed the PPP loan application for Kremkov Industries, his gold mines had 
493 employees, and he had documentation supporting the payroll information. 
Yet, he objects to “any of the alleged facts contained [in paragraphs 20 to 25] 
which imply any fraudulent behavior or activity by him.” This objection is vague 
and leaves the Court to speculate what Mr. Delano’s actual objections are. Does 
Mr. Delano dispute that Keanu Reeves, Gene Hackman, and Charlie Brown were  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 3 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
4 
 
listed as Kremkov employees? (See PSR ¶ 21). Does he dispute that JPMC 
approved the PPP loan and deposited $9,554,425 into an account held in 
Kremkov’s name? (See PSR ¶ 22). Does he dispute that he used the PPP funds to 
write a check for $3 million and deposited that check into a PNC account held in 
Kremkov’s name? (See PSR ¶ 23). Or do none of these facts “imply any 
fraudulent behavior or activity by him” and thus are uncontested? Prior to 
sentencing, Mr. Delano should be required to restate all of his factual objections 
with specificity and clarity.1  
Additional Factual Objection by Government 
 
The final PSR includes a clarification by Mr. Delano on page 3 that was not 
part of the initial PSR. (PSR at 3). The government raises an objection to this 
clarification, which asserts that Mr. Delano “obtained a new social security 
number when he and his wife separated” and that “immigration corrected his 
date of birth,” requiring him to change his social security number. (Id.). No 
 
1 Mr. Delano’s objections to paragraphs concerning the fraudulent tax returns 
and money laundering activity are likewise vague and confusing. For example, 
Mr. Delano testified that he personally filed the tax return using SSN -0540, 
which is the return that was paid out. He also testified that he attempted to file 
the return twice. Yet, he now objects to paragraph 30, which includes facts 
concerning the tax return filed under -0540. He “objects to the allegations 
contained in paragraphs 26-30, stating he committed fraud on the tax returns.” 
(See PSR ¶ 26-30). Again, he leaves the Court to guess which facts in these 
paragraphs are actually in dispute.  
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 4 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
5 
 
evidence has been presented to support either of these assertions, and they are 
inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial. When Mr. Delano requested a 
second social security number, he provided different identifying information and 
marked “no” to the question asking if he had previously been issued a social 
security number. Nothing on the application suggests that Mr. Delano was 
required to obtain a second number or that he was not required to truthfully 
answer the question regarding a prior social security number. 
Guideline Calculations 
The Probation Officer correctly calculated Mr. Delano’s guidelines. For his 
bank and wire fraud offenses (Counts 1 through 3), the PSR included a base 
offense level of 7. (PSR ¶ 49). Twenty levels were added due to a loss amount of 
more than $9.5 million but not more than $25 million. (PSR ¶ 50). Two-level 
enhancements were added for sophisticated means and deriving more than $1 
million in gross receipts from a financial institution. (PSR ¶¶ 51-52). A two-level 
adjustment was applied for obstruction of justice under USSG § 3C1.1. (PSR 
¶ 55). The adjusted offense level for the fraud offenses was 33.  
For his money laundering offenses (Counts 4 through 10), the PSR calculated 
the base offense level under USSG § 2S1.1(a)(1), resulting in an offense level of 
31. (PSR ¶ 57). Two levels were added due to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, 
and two levels were added for sophisticated laundering. (PSR ¶¶ 58-59). A two-
level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice was also applied. (PSR ¶ 62). 
The adjusted offense level was 37. (PSR ¶ 62). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 5 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
6 
 
The Probation Officer properly applied the grouping provisions under USSG 
§ 3D1.2. (PSR ¶¶ 46-48). Mr. Delano did not object to these paragraphs. After 
applying a two-level reduction for Zero-Point Offender, the total offense level 
was 35. (PSR ¶¶ 67-68). With a criminal history category of I, the resulting 
custody guidelines range was calculated as 168 to 210 months. 
Defendant’s Guideline Objections 
Mr. Delano objected to every guideline calculation, stating “Mr. Delano 
maintains his innocence and objects to any computation of offense,” including 
base offense level, specific offense characteristics, and adjusted offense levels. 
(See PSR ¶¶ 49-68). Defendant’s objections submitted to Probation failed to make 
any factual or legal arguments regarding the guidelines’ applications, and the 
Probation Officer was left to generally respond that the guidelines were properly 
calculated. (Id.). On January 20, 2026, Mr. Delano filed a sentencing 
memorandum that provided more specific objections to sophisticated means and 
obstruction of justice. (Doc. 255). The Court should overrule Mr. Delano’s 
objections. 
A. The loss amount is more than $9.5 million. 
Mr. Delano fails to raise a specific objection related to loss, beyond his claim 
of innocence. The evidence presented at trial, which the PSR summarizes, 
established the loss amount by a preponderance of the evidence. First, Kelli 
Carpenter, a witness from JPMC, confirmed that JPMC received a PPP loan 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 6 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
7 
 
application for Kremkov Industries, that JPMC relied on the application to 
approve the PPP loan, and that $9,554,425 in PPP loan funds were deposited into 
a JPMC bank account held in Kremkov’s name.2 Second, Salvatore Hazel, an IRS 
employee, testified that two tax returns were submitted to the IRS for Mr. 
Delano, each using a different social security number, date of birth, and varying 
income, withholdings, and passive losses for Kremkov. As a result of one of the 
returns, IRS issued a check to Mr. Delano for $3,373,441. The second return 
requested a refund of $3,015,573, but IRS did not pay out these funds. The 
Probation Officer correctly included a loss amount of $15,943,439 based on the 
PPP loan and tax returns, which resulted in an increase of 20 levels. (PSR ¶ 50). 
The Court should overrule this objection. 
B. Mr. Delano’s conduct was sophisticated. 
Mr. Delano objects to the two-level application for sophisticated means under 
USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) and the two-level application for sophisticated 
laundering under USSG § 2S1.1(b)(3)(A). (Doc. 255 at 3-4). He asserts that his 
conduct was not sophisticated, complex, or intricate. (Id.). The Court should 
overrule his objections. 
A two-level specific offense enhancement applies if the offense involved 
sophisticated means, meaning “especially complex or especially intricate offense 
 
2 These facts also support the two-level enhancement for deriving $1 million 
or more from a financial institution.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 7 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
8 
 
conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.” USSG § 2B1.1, 
cmt. n. 9; USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Although the application notes identify some 
ways a defendant can use sophisticated means, it is not an exhaustive list. See 
United States v. Feaster, 798 F.3d 1374, 1380 (11th Cir. 2015). “There is no 
requirement that each of a defendant’s individual actions be sophisticated in 
order to impose the enhancement. Rather, it is sufficient if the totality of the 
scheme was sophisticated.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 
2010). 
Here, Mr. Delano’s conduct was undoubtedly sophisticated and intricate. 
First, regarding his fraudulent PPP loan application, Mr. Delano created fake IRS 
documents, and he carefully crafted fake payroll for 493 employees, including 
false statements about tax and social security withholdings. He submitted dozens 
of pages of false documents and ensured that the numbers lined up to what he 
put on his PPP application. His application was tailored to ensure that he had 
just under the employee cap of 500 and could obtain a loan for nearly the 
maximum allowable amount of $10 million. And when his application was 
initially denied, he promptly submitted additional fraudulent documents to 
support his alleged payroll and number of employees.  
Second, Mr. Delano’s fraudulent tax returns were particularly sophisticated. 
He filed two different returns using different social security numbers and dates 
of birth, as well as different addresses and different wages, withholdings, and  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 8 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
9 
 
losses. This conduct alone merits the sophisticated means enhancement. But Mr. 
Delano did more. When his initial attempts to file his tax returns were declined 
by IRS, he tried again – finagling the data and using a different employer 
identification number (“EIN”). Twice, he was unsuccessful, but then he 
discovered which EIN worked and promptly filed the next return. While Mr. 
Delano seeks to describe his conduct as ordinary fraud, his actions were far from 
ordinary; they were extraordinarily sophisticated, intricate, and complex.  
Mr. Delano’s laundering activity was no less complex. At trial, Adrienne 
Richardson, a forensic auditor, outlined the numerous steps that Mr. Delano took 
to conceal and disguise his laundering activity. Almost immediately after 
receiving the PPP funds into a JPMC account, Mr. Delano wrote a check for $3 
million, with a memo line that said “payroll,” and deposited the check into a 
PNC account held in Kremkov’s name. When he received the IRS refund check of 
over $3.3 million, issued in his name, he deposited the funds into the same PNC 
account for Kremkov rather than a personal account. He then moved the 
majority of the fraud proceeds, approximately $6 million, to a different PNC 
account. From there, he funneled money to other accounts and made large 
purchases. Several months later, he created Flyingjack Freight & Logistics and 
opened a Bank of America account in the company’s name. He funneled fraud 
proceeds to this account and made additional transactions – far removed from 
the initial accounts where the PPP and tax funds were deposited. See United  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 9 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
10 
 
States v. Cabrera, 635 F. App’x 801, 808 (11th Cir. 2015) (upholding sophisticated 
laundering enhancement where defendant layered proceeds through multiple 
accounts and used shell companies to disguise funds). Mr. Delano’s extensive 
layering activities were sophisticated, and the enhancement was properly 
applied. 
C. Mr. Delano obstructed justice when he falsely testified. 
To determine if an obstruction of justice enhancement is warranted, the Court 
should consider whether Mr. Delano’s testimony was a “willful impediment to 
or obstruction of justice” and whether the testimony was the result of mistake, 
confusion, or some other impairment. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95-
96 (1993). Mr. Delano chose to testify at trial and concocted an elaborate story, 
with the goal of explaining away the facts presented at trial. He told an 
unbelievable tale of Mr. Lee and Andrea Lewis. Mr. Delano claimed that he 
operated two gold mines in Ghana and that Mr. Lee was his partner. Mr. Lee 
covered payroll and directly paid the employees via wire transfer, but Mr. 
Delano knew that his mines employed 493 employees. Andrea Lewis was his 
bookkeeper, and she was the one who provided the supporting payroll and tax 
documents that he provided with the PPP loan application. She also snuck into 
his house while he was away and filed one of the fraudulent tax returns without 
his knowledge.  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 10 of 12

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
11 
 
Mr. Delano failed to mention Mr. Lee or Andrea Lewis when he was 
interviewed by FBI following his arrest, and he alleged that he had no way of 
contacting either of them. While crafty, his story was unbelievable and filled with 
falsehoods that were designed solely to substantially affect the outcome of the 
case. See Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95-96 (finding the enhancement was appropriate 
because defendant’s testimony was refuted by other witnesses and designed to 
affect the outcome of the trial). An enhancement for obstruction of justice is 
appropriate. 
Conclusion 
The Court should require Mr. Delano to specify his factual objections so that 
the Court may fully address them at the sentencing. The Court should overrule 
Mr. Delano’s guidelines objections. The PSR contains the correct guideline 
calculations.  
The United States recommends a custodial sentence of 186 months, within the 
custody guidelines range. As the government will explain at the sentencing, the 
recommended sentence is reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors, and a 
downward variance below the guidelines range is unreasonable. The United 
States will also seek a period of supervised release of 5 years.
Respectfully submitted, 
THEODORE S. HERTZBERG 
United States Attorney 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 11 of 12

 
/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 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 256     Filed 01/21/26     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.256.0.pdf

Size

130,771 bytes

SHA-256

ad35c7c98057399c1c680d43979c9a673d2b55f83db9fe72d6d6b20ce9cba893

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.256.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)