In the United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co., 1966, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving tax evasion and fraud. The government accused Acme of using fraudulent invoices to evade taxes by inflating costs associated with federal contracts during World War II. The company was found guilty and ordered to pay $1 million in damages under the False Claims Act (FCA). However, on appeal, Acme argued that they were not liable for these penalties because their actions did not result in any actual damage or loss to the government since all contract prices had been negotiated and agreed upon before any false claims were made. The Supreme Court ruled against Acme's argument stating that even though there may have been no direct monetary loss suffered by the Government due to inflated costs as part of an already-negotiated contract price, it does not mean that there is no injury or harm caused. It held that such fraudulent conduct undermines confidence in public administration which itself constitutes substantial damage beyond mere financial considerations. Therefore, it upheld both civil liability under FCA and criminal sanctions for making false statements.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an overly broad interpretation of "fraud" in relation to government contracts could have far-reaching, negative implications. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation would potentially criminalize any breach of contract where the government is involved, even if there was no intent to defraud or cause harm. They contended that not every failure to fulfill a contractual obligation should be considered fraudulent and subject to criminal penalties; rather, fraud should require proof of intentional deceit or dishonesty for personal gain. This view held by the minority emphasized maintaining clear boundaries between civil liability for breach of contract and criminal liability for fraud, which they felt were blurred by the majority's ruling.