What's incorrect? Having knowledge of an actual crime can make you an accomplice. I said generally. You said generally. I made edits before you quoted that to

What's incorrect? Having knowledge of an actual crime can make you an accomplice. I said generally. You said generally. I made edits before you quoted that to clarify that knowledge alone isn't likely going to make you a target of prosecution in the majority of cases. Maybe not even in 1 in a million cases. I've had clients be targeted for prosecution on weak facts plenty of times. If I were a lawyer for the ex-con, and he came to ask me whether to contact the FBI given the facts that seem to be stipulated, I certainly would not recommend not contacting the FBI. Who does and does not have a duty to report is not really relevant in a whole lot of real world cases, unless you think that no ex-con has ever been railroaded on flimsy or fabricated charges. I've had clients plead guilty when they probably could have fought it just because they can't risk doing long-term jail time, and I'm not even a dedicated criminal defense lawyer. I've heard about, and read about, much worse. Surely, you have as well. Edit: Just for example, say Lamo doesn't contact the FBI, and after Manning is prosecuted, they come after Lamo claiming that he advised Manning on how not to get caught, given Lamo's previous experience. Does Lamo beat the charges or go to prison? The system is not rigged in favor of ex-cons. Given the risk, I'd contact the FBI, too.