The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the tax fraud conviction of Ali Akhenaten, formerly known as Darryl Tyrone Oliver, rejecting his challenges to both the sufficiency of evidence and the district court's restitution order.
In a per curiam opinion filed Feb. 4, 2026, the three-judge panel upheld Akhenaten's conviction on five counts of filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The case originated from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Akhenaten proceeded to trial on numerous federal income tax-related charges. A jury found him guilty of filing false tax returns on behalf of both himself and his business. The conviction stems from fraudulent tax documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.
On appeal, Akhenaten mounted a two-pronged challenge to his conviction. First, he argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, specifically challenging proof of the mens rea element required for the offense. Second, he contended the district court erred by ordering him to pay restitution under a statute that does not apply to his Title 26 tax offenses.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. In addressing the sufficiency of evidence challenge, the appeals court outlined the elements required for a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The statute criminalizes the filing of false tax returns and requires prosecutors to prove three elements: first, the making and subscribing of a tax return containing a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury; second, that the defendant did not believe the return to be true and correct as to every material matter; and third, that the defendant acted willfully, as opposed to negligently.
The willfulness requirement represents a significant element in tax fraud prosecutions. Courts have consistently held that the government must prove the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful, rather than through mere negligence or mistake. This mens rea standard protects taxpayers from criminal liability for good-faith errors in complex tax matters.
Akhenaten's challenge focused specifically on whether the government presented sufficient evidence to establish this willful intent. However, the Eleventh Circuit found the evidence adequate to support the jury's verdict on all five counts.
The case reflects broader federal enforcement efforts targeting tax fraud schemes. The Department of Justice has prioritized prosecution of individuals who deliberately file false returns, particularly those involving business entities where the potential for significant revenue loss exists.
Tax fraud prosecutions under Section 7206(1) carry serious consequences. Convictions can result in felony charges punishable by up to three years in prison and substantial fines. The statute serves as a key enforcement tool for the IRS Criminal Investigation division and federal prosecutors.
The restitution dispute centered on the district court's authority to order repayment under statutes governing Akhenaten's specific tax offenses. Federal restitution laws vary depending on the underlying criminal statute, and defendants often challenge orders they claim exceed the court's statutory authority.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance resolves both issues in favor of the government. The decision demonstrates appellate courts' deference to jury verdicts in tax fraud cases where the evidence supports the required elements, particularly regarding willful intent.
The opinion was designated as not for publication, indicating it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. Such designations are common for routine appeals that apply established legal principles without addressing novel issues.
Circuit Judges Charles Jordan, Kenneth Kidd, and Charles Black comprised the panel that decided the case. The per curiam designation means no individual judge authored the opinion, suggesting consensus among the panel members.
The case originated from criminal charges filed in 2019 in the Middle District of Florida. The timeline from initial charges to appellate resolution spans approximately seven years, reflecting the complexity of tax fraud prosecutions and the federal appellate process.
Akhenaten's use of an alias, Darryl Tyrone Oliver, may have been relevant to the government's case, though the opinion does not elaborate on this aspect. Identity issues sometimes complicate tax fraud prosecutions, particularly when defendants operate businesses under different names.
The affirmance closes this chapter of Akhenaten's legal challenges, though defendants in federal criminal cases retain limited options for further review. The Supreme Court reviews only a small percentage of criminal appeals, typically those raising significant constitutional or statutory interpretation questions.
The decision reinforces federal courts' commitment to upholding tax fraud convictions where the evidence supports willful violations. It serves as a reminder that business owners and individuals who deliberately file false tax returns face serious criminal consequences and limited appellate relief when properly convicted.