In the case of Milanovich et ux. v. United States, 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant could be convicted for both stealing government property and receiving that same stolen property. The petitioner, George Milanovich was charged with theft of Government Property under Section 641 of Title 18 U.S.C., as well as knowingly receiving and concealing the same stolen goods under another clause in Section 641. He was found guilty on both counts by a lower court and sentenced separately for each crime. The Supreme Court held that an individual cannot be simultaneously punished for stealing government property and also for receiving or concealing that very same property because it would constitute double jeopardy - being tried twice for substantially the same offense which is prohibited by Fifth Amendment to US Constitution. It concluded that Congress did not intend to punish individuals twice over when they are essentially committing one criminal act against single set of properties at one time.

In the dissenting opinion for Milanovich v. United States, Justice Whittaker argued that the majority's interpretation of the statutes was incorrect and resulted in an unfair double punishment for a single act. He contended that Congress did not intend to create two separate offenses when it enacted 18 U.S.C §641 (theft from government) and 18 U.S.C §2 (aiding and abetting). Instead, he believed these were simply different ways of committing the same offense - stealing from the government. Therefore, charging Milanovich with both crimes constituted double jeopardy as they arose from a single act of theft. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in applying this logic to other similar cases which further highlighted its flawed nature.