In the case United States v. Urbuteit, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States was tasked with determining whether or not a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government could be upheld without proof that an overt act had been committed in furtherance of said conspiracy. The defendant, Mr. Urbuteit, along with others were charged and convicted for conspiring to defraud the U.S by obtaining fraudulent refunds from distilled spirits taxes during World War II era rationing regulations. On appeal, they argued that their convictions should be overturned because no overt act in furtherance of this alleged conspiracy was proven at trial as required under federal law. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed their convictions stating that while generally an overt act is necessary for a conviction on a charge of conspiracy under federal law; however there are exceptions when it comes to certain offenses against the U.S., including frauds perpetrated upon its revenue where such requirement does not apply.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Urbuteit case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and justice, particularly regarding double jeopardy. The dissent contended that Urbuteit had already been tried for his crimes in Germany under German law and thus trying him again in America constituted double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. It further noted that there was no evidence suggesting any unfairness or irregularity with his initial trial in Germany, making it unjustifiable to subject him to another trial on similar charges within American jurisdiction. The dissent also expressed concerns about potential political motivations behind this second prosecution and warned against using criminal trials as tools for achieving foreign policy objectives.