United States v. Eugene Niksich

── United States v. Eugene Niksich ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12882 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 1 of 20 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12882 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EUGENE J. NIKSICH, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-02411-SCJ ____________________ Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. WILSON, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Eugene Niksich appeals the district court’s order granting the United States’ motion for summary judg- ment, in which the court found that Niksich willfully failed to file complete and accurate Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial USCA11 Case: 24-12882 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 2 of 20 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12882 Accounts (FBAR) from 2006 through 2012. Niksich argues that he was unaware of the FBAR requirements until after the years at is- sue and misunderstood that he needed to report his financial inter- est in foreign accounts if the money was not invested. He alterna- tively asserts that the district court incorrectly denied his motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction and equitable estoppel. Niksich also claims that the FBAR penalties are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment and remand is necessary to develop an appro- priate factual record to determine if the fines were excessive. We hold that the district court properly granted the govern- ment’s motion for summary judgment. The court correctly found that Niksich’s failure to properly report was willful and that the af- firmative defenses did not apply. But the district court erred in find- ing the FBAR penalties are not subject to the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. And we agree with Niksich that remand is necessary on the excessiveness issue so that the parties may develop a factual record and argue under the standard set in United States v. Schwarzbaum, 127 F.4th 259 (11th Cir. 2025). Thus, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Niksich is the founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Unique Sporting Products, Inc. He has a bachelor’s degree in prod- uct design and a master’s degree in business administration. In the 1990s, Niksich’s accountant advised Niksich to place his assets in a Swiss account to protect from a potential judgment creditor. USCA11 Case: 24-12882 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/04/2026 Page: 3 of 20 24-12882 Opinion of the Court 3 Acting on that advice, Niksich hired a foreign asset manager and gave him authority to manage assets deposited in Niksich’s name, as well as a limited power of attorney. With the foreign asset manager’s help, Niksich opened a Swiss bank account at AKB Privatbank Zurich AG (AKB). Niksich’s bank statements were sent to his United States address. His AKB account