I think what usually happens is the government can prove tax evasion, but they cannot prove "by a preponderance of evidence" (or "beyond a reasonable doubt," wh

I think what usually happens is the government can prove tax evasion, but they cannot prove "by a preponderance of evidence" (or "beyond a reasonable doubt," whichever is applicable here) so easily. Sure, everyone knew that Capone was guilty of more than tax evasion, but could they prove it in a way that his high-priced lawyer could not convince a jury of his peers otherwise?