In the United States v. Bramblett case of 1954, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a former Congressman, Dayton E. Bramblett was guilty of embezzlement under Section 641 of Title 18 in the US Code which makes it an offense to embezzle or knowingly convert to one's use "any record, voucher, money or thing of value" belonging to the United States. The issue arose when Mr. Bramblett falsely represented himself as renting office space for official purposes and collected reimbursement from Congress' contingent fund while he actually used these funds for personal expenses including rent on his private apartment. He argued that this fund did not belong to the United States but rather constituted a pool available for members’ convenience without any accountability required by law; hence his actions could not be considered theft from government property. However, Justice Sherman Minton writing for majority rejected this argument stating that even though no specific appropriation had been made by Congress towards its contingent fund and despite lack of strict accounting procedures over its disbursement - it still remained public money entrusted with federal officials who were expected to act as custodians ensuring lawful expenditure only.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bramblett, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's interpretation of the statute was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent behavior. He contended that Congress intended to punish only those who knowingly defraud or attempt to defraud a department or agency of the United States, not those who simply make false statements without intent to deceive. The justice further asserted that under this broader interpretation, any citizen could be prosecuted for making an incorrect statement on a government form even if it were due to honest mistake or misunderstanding rather than fraudulent intent. Therefore, he disagreed with convicting Bramblett based solely on his false representation as a congressman’s nephew in order to open bank accounts because there was no clear evidence showing he intended to cheat or harm anyone by doing so.