In the United States v. Heinze case of 1910, Augustus Heinze was charged with misapplying funds from a national bank in Montana where he served as director. The Supreme Court had to determine whether his actions were illegal under federal law which prohibited bank officials from knowingly misapplying any of the moneys, funds or credits of such banks. The court ruled that while it is not necessarily unlawful for a bank officer to borrow money from their own institution, it becomes so when done with fraudulent intent and without security - essentially using the borrowed money for personal gain at risk to the bank's solvency. In this case, Heinze had used his position within the banking system for personal profit by lending himself and associates large sums without adequate collateral or proper procedure followed. He was found guilty on several counts due to evidence showing he acted knowingly and willfully in violation of his duties as an official.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Heinze, Justice Harlan argued that the court majority had misinterpreted the statute in question and its intent. He believed that Congress intended to prohibit all rebates or concessions of any kind which would allow one person to obtain transportation at a lower rate than others using similar services from common carriers engaged in interstate commerce. The defendant's actions, he maintained, clearly fell within this prohibition as they involved receiving preferential rates through deceptive means. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that only direct recipients of such illegal benefits could be prosecuted under this law; anyone who knowingly participated in these fraudulent schemes should also be held accountable regardless of whether they directly received these unlawful advantages or not.