In Wallace v. United States (1921), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a case involving fraudulent use of mail for stock sales. The defendant, Mr. Wallace, was convicted on 68 counts of using mails to defraud investors by selling stocks in oil companies that he knew were worthless or grossly overvalued. On appeal, his main argument was that the indictment did not sufficiently describe how he intended to commit fraud and therefore should be dismissed. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction stating that an indictment does not need to outline every detail of how a crime is committed but only needs to provide enough information so that the accused can prepare their defense adequately and avoid double jeopardy in future prosecutions for the same offense. Furthermore, it held that if there are multiple ways a crime could have been committed under one statute - as is often true in cases involving fraud - then an indictment doesn't need to specify which method was used unless different punishments apply depending on the method used.

In the dissenting opinion for Wallace v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Wallace's conviction under a statute that criminalized false statements made in connection with war risk insurance applications. He argued that the law was intended to punish fraudulent claims against government funds and not mere misrepresentations on an application form. According to him, there was no evidence of intent by Mr. Wallace to defraud or cause loss to anyone; he merely sought better terms for his loan by making inaccurate statements about his financial status and assets, which were irrelevant as long as he continued paying premiums on time without defaulting. The justice believed this interpretation would prevent misuse of such laws from punishing innocent mistakes or minor inaccuracies while still protecting public funds from actual fraudsters who intend harm.