In the 1924 case of Silberschein v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Mr. Silberschein, was convicted for attempting to defraud the government by not paying taxes on his income from illegal alcohol sales during Prohibition. His appeal argued that he could not be prosecuted because self-incrimination would violate his Fifth Amendment rights; essentially claiming that he couldn't be expected to report illegal income on his tax returns without incriminating himself for those same illegal activities. However, the court rejected this argument stating that laws requiring taxpayers to declare their incomes did not compel them to disclose any crimes they might have committed in earning it. Therefore, failing to pay taxes constituted an independent crime separate from any other potential criminal activity related with generating said income.

In the dissenting opinion for Silberschein v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold Silberschein's conviction was a misinterpretation of the National Prohibition Act. He believed that this law did not intend to criminalize every act indirectly related to alcohol production or distribution but rather aimed at those directly involved in these activities. In his view, Silberschein’s actions of leasing property without knowledge of its intended use for illegal liquor manufacturing should not be considered as aiding and abetting under this law. Furthermore, he emphasized that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Silberschein had actual knowledge about tenants' illicit intentions when renting out his premises. Therefore, he concluded that convicting him based on mere suspicion or probability is unjust and contrary to fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence requiring certainty in proof before imposing penalties.