Memorandum Opinion — No. 1:24-cr-00255 (Dkt. 51, D. Md.)
Summary
Memorandum opinion of September 24, 2025 by Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, United States v. Vince Akins, case 1:24-cr-00255, Document 51. It rules on the government's motion in limine to admit evidence (ECF No. 40). The twenty-count indictment charges bank fraud, transactions in criminally derived proceeds, willful failure to pay over trust fund taxes and willful failure to file a tax return. The charges relate to Akins's role as director and sole owner of five companies, including Avia Solutions, LLC, and to Paycheck Protection Program loans under the CARES Act. The court grants the motion in part, denies it without prejudice in part and reserves ruling on Akins's prior criminal conviction and the proffered Luomo evidence.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Memorandum Opinion — No. 1:24-cr-00255 (Dkt. 51, D. Md.).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-opinion-no-1-24-cr-00255-dkt-51-d-md-925cf7dc47/
, SHA-256 b74ebf651301f429e997e5a78e5c1cb3e8c4c2d74a8b27a3931bc43189d00dcd.Full text
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *
v. * Criminal Action No. RDB-24-0255
VINCE AKINS, *
Defendant. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Vince Akins (“Mr. Akins” or “Defendant”) is charged in a twenty-count
Indictment with Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Counts One–Four); Conducting
Transaction in Criminally Derived Proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) (Counts Five–
Six); Willful Failure to Account For and Pay Over Trust Fund Taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7202 (Counts Seven–Nineteen); and Willful Failure to File Tax Return in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7203 (Count Twenty). (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Akins’ charges arise from his alleged failure
to pay federal income taxes during the year 2020, fraudulent conduct as the Director and sole
owner of five business entities, and related money laundering. (Id.; ECF No. 40 at 2.)
Presently pending before this Court is the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence
(ECF No. 40).1 Mr. Akins has responded in Opposition (ECF No. 45), and the Government
has filed a Reply (ECF No. 48). The Court heard oral argument from the parties at a Motions
Hearing on September 23, 2025. For the reasons stated on the record and expounded further
below, the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED
IN PART, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART, and RESERVED in part.
1The Government filed two additional Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 39, 41), which this Court addressed both
on the record at the Motions Hearing and by separate Order dated September 24, 2025.
1
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 2 of 16
BACKGROUND
The conduct charged in the Indictment arises largely from Mr. Akins’ activity as the
Director and sole owner of five (5) companies:
1) Avia Solutions, LLC (“Avia Solutions”), which operated between 2019
and 2024, received a federal contract with the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and employed between five and eleven people;
2) Queens Limo Corp. (“Queens Limo”), which operated between 2012
and 2018;
3) AVS Mobility, which operated between 2015 and 2018;
4) VGA Systems Corp. (“VGA Systems”), which was registered in 2001
but had no business in activity in 2019 or 2020; and
5) Royal Systems Transportation, Inc. (“RST” or “Royal Systems”), which
was registered in 2013 and forfeited in 2015, but had no business activity.
(ECF No. 40 at 2; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2–7.) As relevant to the Government’s Motion (ECF No.
40), the charges against Mr. Akins relate to alleged fraud under the Internal Revenue Code
(“IRC”) and the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”),
Pub. L. 116–136, 120 Stat. 3556, which Congress passed during the COVID-19 Pandemic to
authorize the Small Business Administration to issue loans to qualifying small businesses
through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 23–24.)
i. Tax Charges
Under the IRC, employers must withhold federal income taxes and Federal Insurance
Contribution Act (“FICA”) taxes from their employees’ pay. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 11.) FICA taxes
include Social Security and Medicare taxes (collectively, “trust fund taxes”), and employers
must pay withheld trust fund taxes and matching employer contributions to the IRS each
quarter. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) The IRC provides that a “responsible person” is an individual
responsible for collecting, accounting for, and paying over such taxes, and any individual with
2
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 3 of 16
authority to exercise significant control over the employer’s financial affairs may be a
“responsible person,” regardless of whether he or she in fact exercised such control. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Additionally, one month after the end of each calendar quarter, employers must file an
Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return (“Form 941”), which provides the total amount of
income taxes withheld from employees’ pay, the employees’ and employer’s share of trust fund
taxes, resulting taxes due, and total tax deposits. (Id. ¶ 13.)
The Indictment charges that Mr. Akins was a “responsible person” for his business
Avia Solutions, but he failed to account for and pay over trust fund taxes on its behalf. (Id.
¶ 16.) Specifically, the Indictment charges that between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the
fourth quarter of 2022, Avia Solutions failed to pay trust fund taxes despite having substantially
greater receipts than tax liabilities. (Id. ¶ 17.) During this period, Mr. Akins allegedly used
Avia Solutions’ receipts for personal expenditures such as luxury vehicles, residential rent, and
private school tuition for his child. (Id. ¶ 18.) Additionally, the Indictment charges that Mr.
Akins failed to file (1) Forms 941 for Avia Solutions beginning in the second quarter of 2020;
(2) Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Returns (“Forms 940”) for Avia Solutions
beginning in tax year 2019; and (3) his own U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (“Forms
1040”) in tax year 2020. (Id. ¶ 19.) Accordingly, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) filed
substitutes for returns for Mr. Akins, Queens Limo, and AVS Mobility and, due to Mr. Akins’
alleged failure to pay employment taxes for AVS Mobility, assessed a Trust Fund Recovery
Penalty (“TFRP”) against him. (Id. ¶ 20–21.) The Indictment charges that the IRS has
assessed approximately $1.8 million in taxes, interests, and penalties against Mr. Akins relating
to tax years 2008 through 2017. (Id. ¶ 22.)
3
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 4 of 16
ii. Paycheck Protection Program Loan Fraud Charges
The Indictment further charges that in June 2020, Mr. Akins submitted four PPP loans
totaling $387,220 on behalf of Queens Limo, AVS Mobility, VGA Systems, and RST. (Id. ¶¶
29–32.) As part of the PPP loan applications, Mr. Akins allegedly attached Forms 940 and
Forms 941 that purported to show employee wage expenses and operations for each of the
four entities. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Mr. Akins also inaccurately represented that the entities
engaged in federal government contracting. (Id.) The Indictment charges that the IRS Forms
and representations were false. (Id.) Additionally, the Indictment charges that these entities
were not in operation in 2019 or 2020 and had no employee expenses during that period. (Id.)
After receiving funds for three of these PPP loans to an account in the name of Avia Solutions,
Mr. Akins allegedly caused two wire transfers totaling $151,060 from that account to bank
accounts in Nigeria. (Id. at 3; ECF No. 1 ¶ 36.) The Indictment charges that Mr. Akins used
such funds for personal purposes and failed to file a 2020 individual income tax return. (ECF
No. 40 at 3; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 36, 41.)
On August 28, 2024, a grand jury sitting in Baltimore issued an Indictment charging
Mr. Akins with four counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Counts One–
Four); two counts of conducting a transaction of criminally derived proceeds, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts Five–Six); twelve counts of willful failure to account for and pay
over trust fund taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202 (Counts Seven–Nineteen); and one
count of willful failure to file a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Count Twenty).
(ECF No. 1.) On September 4, 2025, the Government filed a Motion in Limine to Admit
Evidence (ECF No. 40), seeking to admit various evidence of Mr. Akins’ prior or uncharged
4
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 5 of 16
conduct. Mr. Akins responded in Opposition (ECF No. 45), and the Government replied
(ECF No. 48). The Court heard oral argument from the parties at a Motions Hearing on
September 23, 2025, and this matter is now ripe for review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion in limine is a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary
question.” United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff’d, 469 U.S. 38 (1984).
The purpose of a motion in limine is “to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in
advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” United States v. Slagle,
SAG-15-392, 2015 WL 5897740, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015) (quoting Banque Hypothecaire Du
Canton De Geneve v. Union Mines, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 1400, 1401 (D. Md. 1987)); see Osei v. Univ.
of Md. Univ. Coll., 202 F. Supp. 3d 471, 479 n.5 (D. Md. 2016) vacated and remanded on other
grounds, 710 F. App’x. 593 (4th Cir. 2018) (“[M]otions in limine are meant ‘to streamline the
case for trial and to provide guidance to counsel [and the parties] regarding evidentiary issues.’”
(quoting Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 554, 558 (D. Md. 2001))).
Evidentiary rulings prior to trial are generally preliminary or tentative, made in the
discretion of the court, for the purpose of assisting in preparation for trial. Luce, 713 F.2d at
1239–40; see Adams, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 558 (“A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a
preliminary or advisory opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.”).
When the evidence is actually offered at trial, the trial court may change its ruling. Luce, 713
F.2d at 1239. Additionally, “[a] district court is accorded a wide discretion in determining the
admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552
U.S. 379, 384 (2008) (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54 (1984)).
5
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 6 of 16
ANALYSIS
The Government seeks admission in evidence of six alleged prior acts—four in its case-
in-chief and two in cross-examination or rebuttal. See (ECF No. 40 at 1; ECF No. 48). In its
case-in-chief, the Government seeks to admit: (1) Mr. Akins’ alleged failure to account for and
pay over Avia Solutions’ FICA taxes during the quarters charged in Counts Seven through
Nineteen and unemployment taxes during tax years 2019 through 2022; (2) Mr. Akins’ alleged
unsuccessful attempt to use false or fraudulent applications to obtain “second draw” PPP
loans for the four entities identified in the bank fraud charges in Counts One through Four;
(3) Mr. Akins’ prior civil penalties for failure to pay federal income and trust fund taxes; 2 and
(4) Mr. Akins’ alleged use of business funds to pay personal expenditures rather than trust
fund taxes owed by Avia Solutions. (ECF No. 40 at 1.) On cross-examination or rebuttal, the
Government seeks to admit (1) Mr. Akins’ 2006 criminal conviction for Social Security and
bank fraud; and (2) Mr. Akins’ alleged use of Individuals A and B to obtain false contracts
with the federal Government related to the business Luomo Creatives (“Luomo”). (Id.) The
Court addresses each category separately, grouping some evidence together where appropriate.
I. Evidence in Case-In-Chief
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.”
Relevant evidence is that which has “any tendency to make a fact [of consequence in
determining the action] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” FED.
R. EVID. 401(a),(b); see also United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 346 (4th Cir. 2003) abrogated
2 Although the Government’s Motion initially sought admission of the conduct underlying those civil penalties,
(ECF No. 40 at 1), it clarified in its Reply (ECF No. 48) and on the record at the Motions Hearing that it seeks
only admission of the penalties themselves and not the underlying conduct.
6
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 7 of 16
in part on other grounds by Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010). Even where evidence is
relevant, however, it still may be excluded. Under Rule 403, a court has discretion to exclude
relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair
prejudice[.]” FED. R. EVID. 403. Unfair prejudice exists where there is “a genuine risk that
the emotions of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and this risk is disproportionate
to the probative value of the offered evidence.” United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 310 (4th
Cir. 2008). Separately, in the context of evidence of uncharged, prior conduct, Rule 404(b)
provides that “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a
person’s character” or propensity to commit a crime. Prior acts evidence falls into two
categories, each subject to distinct admissibility analyses: (1) evidence that is intrinsic to the
charged crime; or (2) extrinsic evidence governed by Rule 404(b), which imposes additional
requirements for admission.3
Prior acts evidence that is intrinsic to a charged crime is not subject to Rule 404(b)’s
heightened admissibility analysis. United States v. Beeman, 135 F.4th 139, 145 (4th Cir. 2025),
petition for cert filed Beeman v. United States, No. 25-5165 (July 22, 2025). Evidence is intrinsic if
it “arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense” or is
“necessary to complete the story of the crime at trial.” United States v. Sutherland, 921 F.3d 421,
429–30 (4th Cir. 2019). To be “necessary to complete the story of the crime,” evidence “must
be ‘probative of an integral component of the crime on trial or provide information without
3 Extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Rule 404(b) only if the proponent of the evidence
can show that the evidence is (1) relevant to an issue other than character; (2) necessary to prove an element of
the crime charged; (3) reliable; and (4) admissible under Rule 403. United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th
Cir. 1997). As explained on the record and further below, the Court concludes that the evidence proffered in
the Government’s case-in-chief is intrinsic evidence that does not implicate Rule 404(b).
7
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 8 of 16
which the factfinder would have an incomplete or inaccurate view of other evidence or of the
story of the crime itself.’” Beeman, 135 F.4th at 146 (quoting United States v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d
784, 795 (4th Cir. 2020)). Evidence that provides “necessary contextual information,” id., or
is “‘inextricably intertwined’ with evidence of the charged offenses and forms an integral part
of the testimony concerning them” is intrinsic, United States v. Blair, ELH-19-410, 2021 WL
4339132, at *29 (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2021) (quoting United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 352 (4th
Cir. 2010)). Whether evidence is “intrinsic” depends on a “case-by-case, fact-based analys[i]s.”
Id. at *21 (quoting Brizuela, 962 F.3d at 794).
A. Mr. Akins’ alleged failure to account for and pay over Avia Solutions’
FICA taxes and unemployment taxes
To prove willful failure to account for and pay over trust fund taxes as charged in
Counts Seven through Nineteen, the Government must prove that Mr. Akins acted willfully.
26 U.S.C. § 7202; United States v. Boccone, 556 F. App’x 215, 238 (4th Cir. 2014) (unpublished).
“Willfulness in the context of criminal tax cases is defined as a voluntary, intentional violation
of a known legal duty . . . .” United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting
United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 1992)); accord United States v. Lord, 404 F.
App’x 773, 778 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (holding trial court “correctly
defined . . . ‘willful’” as to 26 U.S.C. § 7202 charge where it used definition identical to that
expounded in Gilbert). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized that
“willfulness . . . can be inferred from [a] pattern of failing to pay over the taxes for an extended
period of time.” Lord, 404 F. App’x at 779 (citing United States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 731
(4th Cir. 1967)). In this case, Mr. Akins’ alleged failure to account for and pay over Avia
8
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 9 of 16
Solutions’ FICA taxes between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the fourth quarter of 2022 and
his failure to file annual Unemployment Tax Returns, file annual IRS Forms 940, and pay taxes
owed is intrinsic evidence of willfulness. Specifically, by purporting to show that Mr. Akins
failed to file other required taxes and tax forms on behalf of Avia Solutions during the same
period as the conduct charged in Counts Seven through Nineteen, this evidence suggests a
“pattern of failing to pay over” taxes in a willful manner. Lord, 404 F. App’x at 779.
Moreover, this evidence is necessary to complete the story of the conduct charged in
Counts Seven through Seventeen. Tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7202 implicates the Fourth
Circuit’s general approach to intrinsic evidence in fraud cases. See United States v. Barringer, 25
F.4th 239, 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2022) (discussing “conviction for tax fraud under § 7202”). As
Judge Hollander of this Court has recognized, “evidence of conduct not charged in the
‘specific execution’ of a fraudulent scheme may still be relevant to the ‘nature and scope of
the scheme charged.’” Blair, 2021 WL 4339132, at *30 (quoting United States v. Bajoghli, 785
F.3d 957, 964 (4th Cir. 2015)). Specifically, “a scheme to defraud requires a plot, plan, or
arrangement that is executed by a fraudulent transaction.” Bajoghli, 785 F.3d at 962–63
(emphasis in original). Thus, in cases involving fraud charges, evidence of an overall scheme
to defraud is relevant to each charged instance of fraud. Id. at 963. In this case, Mr. Akins’
failure to pay FICA and unemployment taxes for Avia Solutions is relevant to the “nature and
scope of [his] scheme” to defraud the federal Government of the trust fund taxes owed by
Avia Solutions as charged in Counts Seven through Nineteen. Id. at 964.
Intrinsic evidence does not implicate Rule 404(b) and instead must survive only Rule
403’s balancing test. Unfair prejudice exists where there is “a genuine risk that the emotions
9
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 10 of 16
of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and this risk is disproportionate to the probative
value of the offered evidence.” Siegel, 536 F.3d at 310. Evidence of conduct no more
“sensational or disturbing than the [conduct] with which” a defendant is charged is unlikely to
produce unfair prejudice. United States v. Elsheikh, 103 F.4th 1006, 1027 (4th Cir. 2024)
(quoting United States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995)). In this case, Mr. Akins’ alleged
failure to pay unemployment and FICA taxes during the same period as the conduct charged
in Counts Seven through Nineteen is highly probative of willfulness and a scheme to defraud,
and it is no more sensational than the conduct charged in those Counts.
Accordingly, Mr. Akins’ alleged failure to pay Avia Solutions’ FICA taxes and
unemployment taxes is intrinsic evidence admissible to complete the story of the conduct
charged in Counts Seven through Nineteen and to prove willfulness as an element of those
Counts. As stated on the record and expounded above, the Government’s Motion is
GRANTED as to Mr. Akins’ alleged failure to pay Avia Solutions’ FICA taxes and his alleged
failure to pay unemployment taxes.
B. Mr. Akins’ Alleged Unsuccessful Attempt to Obtain “Second Draw”
PPP Loans for Entities Referenced in Counts One Through Four
To prove the bank fraud charged in Counts One through Four, the Government must
prove that Mr. Akins (1) “knowingly execute[d], or attempt[ed] to execute, a scheme or
artifice” (2) “to defraud a financial institution; or” (3) “to obtain any of the moneys, funds,
credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a
financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1344. As discussed above, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that
“a scheme to defraud requires a plot, plan, or arrangement that is executed by a fraudulent
10
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 11 of 16
transaction” such that evidence of uncharged conduct may be relevant to proving the overall
scheme. Bajoghli, 785 F.3d at 962–63 (emphasis in original). Importantly, “[e]vidence of
uncharged conduct is not ‘other crimes’ evidence subject to Rule 404 if the uncharged conduct
‘arose out of the same series of transactions as the charged offense, or if [evidence of the
uncharged conduct] is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.’” Siegel, 536 F.3d
at 316 (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 885 (4th Cir.
1994)). Rather, subject to Rule 403, such evidence is admissible as intrinsic evidence that
“complete[s] the story of the crime[s] on trial.” United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 396 (4th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Kennedy, 32 F.3d at 886)).
The Government represented on the record that it intends to submit evidence of
“second draw” loan applications in which Mr. Akins allegedly continued the fraudulent
conduct by which he obtained the original PPP loans underlying the bank fraud charges in
Counts One through Four.4 As an alleged continuation of the bank fraud scheme related to
the four entities charged in Counts One through Four, therefore, the alleged unsuccessful
“second draw” applications on behalf of those entities are intrinsic to the charged “scheme to
defraud a financial institution.” (ECF No. 1 at 8); see McBride, 676 F.3d at 396. Rule 403 does
not preclude admission of this intrinsic evidence because it is highly probative of a scheme to
fraudulently obtain PPP loans using the four entities referenced in Counts One through Four,
and alleged fraudulent application for a “second draw” PPP loan is “no more sensational”
than the conduct charged in Counts One through Four. Elsheikh, 103 F.4th at 1027 (quoting
4 Specifically, the Government represented that it chose not to formally charge the conduct related to the
“second draw” loans at least in part because the “second draw” applications were not granted.
11
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 12 of 16
Boyd, 53 F.3d at 637). Accordingly, as stated on the record and explained further herein, the
Government’s Motion is GRANTED as to the “second draw” PPP loan evidence, which is
admitted as intrinsic to Counts One through Four.
C. Prior Trust Fund Recovery Penalty and Civil Tax Judgment
To prove willful failure to pay over trust fund taxes and federal income taxes under 26
U.S.C. §§ 7202, 7203, as charged in Counts Seven through Twenty, the Government bears
the burden to prove that Mr. Akins willfully violated his duty as a “responsible person,” or, as
relevant to Count Twenty, willfully failed to pay federal income taxes. See Barringer, 25 F.4th
at 257–58 (discussing requirement to prove defendant was “responsible person”); Boccone, 556
F. App’x at 238 (citing Lord, 404 F. App’x at 775). To prove that Mr. Akins’ knew of and
willfully violated his duty as a “responsible person,” the Government seeks to admit evidence
that (1) an IRS agent previously imposed a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (“TFRP”) on Mr.
Akins for his failure to pay over trust fund taxes for his company AVS Mobility for tax periods
ending September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2017; and (2) in 2019, Judge Coulson of the
District of Maryland entered summary judgment against Mr. Akins in a civil tax case filed
against him in this Court by the United States. (ECF No. 40 at 5); see United States v. Vince
Akins et al., Civ. No. JMC-16-84. As explained on the record and expounded below, any
probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice
and confusing the issues.
The Fourth Circuit has recognized that a “pattern of failing to pay over taxes for an
extended period of time” is indirect evidence of willfulness. Lord, 404 F. App’x at 779 (citing
Ostendorff, 371 F.2d at 731); see also United States v. Daraio, 445 F.3d 253, 264 (3d Cir. 2006)
12
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 13 of 16
(admitting evidence of “defendant’s past taxpaying record” to show willfulness (quoting United
States v. Ringwalt, 213 F. Supp. 2d 499, 506 (E.D. Pa. 2002))); United States v. Farr, 701 F.3d
1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2012) (admitting prior TFRP as evidence of intent and knowledge).
Thus, a prior TFRP is intrinsic evidence of willfulness because it tends to suggest that, at the
time of the charged conduct, Mr. Akins knew (1) of the requirement to pay trust fund taxes;
(2) that his ownership in an entity could cause the IRS to deem him a “responsible person;”
and (3) that failure to pay trust fund taxes could result in penalty. Relatedly, the prior civil
judgment for failure to pay income taxes in 2008, 2009, and 2010 is intrinsic evidence of
willfulness as to the violation of § 7203 charged in Count XX.
As explained on the record, however, both the TFRP and prior civil judgment by
another judge of this Court carry significant risk of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues
because of the highly distinct standards of proof in such administrative and civil proceedings
as compared to the criminal charges at issue in this case.5 See FED. R. EVID. 403. As an initial
matter, the probative value of the prior civil judgment for civil tax misconduct between 2008
and 2010 is substantially outweighed by the risk that the jury will either become confused by
the different burdens of proof or unfairly convict Mr. Akins’ on the belief that a judge of this
Court has already found him liable for conduct akin to that charged in Count Twenty.
Similarly, the Government has not provided the standard under which IRS agents choose to
issue TFRPs, but introducing a prior TFRP could confuse the issues by requiring the jury to
distinguish between that administrative standard and the standard to criminally convict a
5 Even if the Court did not conclude that the TFRP and prior civil judgment are intrinsic to the charged
conduct, such evidence would not be admissible under Rule 404(b) because, as noted above, the Rule 404(b)
test incorporates Rule 403. See Queen, 132 F.3d at 995.
13
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 14 of 16
defendant of tax fraud. On the record, the Government conceded that at this pretrial stage,
it is premature to admit these prior civil penalties but asserted the penalties may be admissible
in its rebuttal case. Accordingly, the Government’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to the prior TFRP and civil judgment against Mr. Akins.
D. Alleged Use of Business Accounts for Personal Expenses
As noted on the record and above, the tax fraud charged under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7202, 7203
in Counts Seven through Twenty requires the Government to prove that Mr. Akins acted
willfully. The Fourth Circuit has recognized that “intentional preference of other creditors
over the United States is sufficient to establish the element of willfulness.” Boccone, 556 F.
App’x at 239 (quoting Turpin v. United States, 970 F.2d 1344, 1347 (4th Cir. 1992)). The Sixth
and Seventh Circuits have further recognized that evidence of discretionary spending or
spending on personal expenses is relevant and admissible as to willfulness. United States v.
Blanchard, 618 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ellis, 548 F.3d 539, 543 (7th Cir.
2008). In this case, as both parties appeared to agree on the record, Mr. Akins’ use of business
accounts for personal expenditures naturally completes the story of allegations that he failed
to pay over taxes by providing a narrative of how he used the funds other than to pay taxes
owed.6 The probative value of such intrinsic evidence in providing necessary context for Mr.
Akins’ alleged failure to pay required taxes is not substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair
prejudice. See FED. R. EVID. 403. Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record and
6 The Court notes that Mr. Akins has reserved his right to object to specific evidence of the use of business
accounts for personal expenses. As stated on the record, to the extent possible, such objections should be
made before trial and as soon as they arise.
14
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 15 of 16
explained herein, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED as to Mr. Akins’ alleged use of
business accounts for personal expenses.
II. Evidence on Cross-Examination or in Rebuttal Case
As stated on the record and explained below, the Court reserves ruling on the
admissibility of the prior criminal conviction and conduct related to Luomo except to
determine that the Government has provided the required notice under Federal Rules of
Evidence 609(b)(2) and 404(b). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b), the Government may
use a conviction greater than ten years old to impeach a testifying criminal defendant if “(1)
the conviction’s probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially
outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written
notice . . . .” FED. R. EVID. 609(b)(1)–(2). In this case, Mr. Akins’ prior conviction is only
implicated if he testifies, and the Court cannot determine before hearing the evidence
presented at trial the probative value of any conviction for impeachment purposes.
Accordingly, as both parties agree, the Motion is premature as to the prior conviction.
Similarly, both parties agreed in their briefing and on the record that the admissibility
of Mr. Akins’ alleged conduct at Luomo depends on the evidence adduced at trial. See (ECF
No. 48 at 4; ECF No. 45 at 3). Specifically, the proffered Luomo evidence may be admissible
if Mr. Akins chooses to testify in his own defense and/or offers a defense of mistake, accident,
good faith, or a similar argument, but any admissibility depends on the specific evidence
adduced. Accordingly, as stated on the record, the Court reserves ruling on the admissibility
of (1) Mr. Akins’ prior criminal conviction and (2) the proffered Luomo evidence except to
15
Case 1:24-cr-00255-RDB Document 51 Filed 09/24/25 Page 16 of 16
determine that the Government has properly provided notice as required under Federal Rules
of Evidence 609(b)(2) and 403(b)(3).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated on the record at the September 23, 2025, Motions Hearing and
expounded more fully above, the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence (ECF
No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART; DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART; and
reserved in part.
A separate Order follows.
/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States Senior District Judge
Date: September 24, 2025
16
File and source
- File
- 51.pdf
- Size
- 207,216 bytes
- SHA-256
- b74ebf651301f429e997e5a78e5c1cb3e8c4c2d74a8b27a3931bc43189d00dcd
- Our copy
- 51.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.