In the case of Concord First National Bank v. Hawkins in 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover funds from an individual who had received them under false pretenses. The defendant, Mr. Hawkins, had obtained money from the plaintiff (Concord First National Bank) by presenting fraudulent checks for payment at various banks and then disappearing before they were discovered to be counterfeit. When he was eventually caught and brought to trial, he argued that since he did not directly defraud Concord First National Bank but rather deceived other institutions into giving him cash on their behalf, he should not be held liable for repaying them. The court disagreed with this argument and ruled in favor of the plaintiff bank stating that it doesn't matter through what medium or by what instrumentality a fraud is accomplished if one person's property is thereby converted to another’s use without his consent; it is larceny within legal definition as much when effected by means of a check as when done by any other contrivance known to bad men.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Concord First National Bank v. Hawkins, it was argued that a bank should not be held liable for accepting and cashifying fraudulent checks without knowledge or suspicion of fraud. The dissenting justices believed that banks operate on trust and must honor their customers' drafts unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. They contended that holding banks accountable in such cases would place an unreasonable burden on them, potentially disrupting normal banking operations. Furthermore, they asserted that if a person commits fraud by drawing checks on non-existent funds, it's primarily his crime rather than the bank's fault for honoring its customer’s request in good faith.