Based on an interesting (and occassionally heated) conversation I had at work today. Note, I’m going to use male pronouns for the criminal and female for the partner soley for readability and because that’s the usual dynamic in these sort of relationships.
Basically if a couple’s lifestyle is based on the criminality of one half of the couple how much responsibility (morally and so on) does the other half accumulate for the state of affairs.
There are three main scenarios that I can imagine, firstly what if the female actively encourages the criminality of her partner, she knows that his ‘income’ and their standard of living is based on his criminal activities. She takes no active part in these activities apart from ‘moral encouragement’ as it were.
Secondly if she passively encourages it, she is aware that their lifestyle is unsustainable given her partners legitimate means of income but she willingly does not desire or attempt to uncover the real source of their ‘wealth’ but turns a blind eye so as to continue in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed.
And thirdly if she is genuinely unware of her partners activities and sees no reason to question their lifestyle.
I’m sure there are many more factors but those are the main ones I believe. Personally I believe that in the first two cases the female is just as culpable as the male, she is receiving all the benefits of his criminality with none of the risk, the third not so much but she’s need to have a damn good reason for being so naive.
Of course if you introduce the factor of coercion it changes things but for the benefit of the scenario lets assume the passive partner is not being coerced.
Thoughts? 
