body: This is a question out of curiosity only, indirectly inspired by my [last question](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3670/can-you-plead-the-fifth-to-avoid-revealing-the-identity-of-someone-you-were-accu) post. I'm wondering at what point not reporting a crime is itself a crime.
  
  
  I know that if someone happens to witness a bar fight and doesn't immediately call the cops they are not guilty of a crime (or I assume they aren't, unless they're technically guilty and simply never prosecuted for it). This implies that the refusal to report a crime is not, by itself, a crime.
  
  
  However, I'm also pretty sure if, for example, a women knows her boyfriend is sexually assaulting their child and turns a blind eye to it she can be convicted as an accomplice to the crime. Likewise, I think if you're riding in the car with someone who does a hit and run you are required to report it or be an accomplice.
  
  
  So I'm wondering where this line is drawn. At what point does one's involvement become such that they are guilty simply for failing to report another individual, assuming they have not actively done anything to directly support the crime otherwise?
  
  
  Furthermore, if someone is indirectly benefiting from a crime they do not encourage or facilitate – for instance a wife getting a new fur coat after her husband robs a bank despite her not approving of the husband's actions – does this make her an accomplice? Is there a line here to draw, presumably a bar serving a drink to someone they know is a bookie doesn't make them guilty, even if the bookie presumably earned the money he is using to buy the drink via an illegal job?
  
  
  
title: At what point does refusal to report a crime make one an accomplice to a crime?