There are some professions, notably medicine and teaching, that I know of, where knowledge or suspicion of high likelihood that “a crime has been committed against a victim who cannot speak for himself or herself” (such as a minor or a mentally or physically incapacitated person, and evidence as displayed by the victim’s demeanor or physical appearance to the doctor / nurse or teacher) must be reported to relevant authorities, but that still has more to do with the profession itself, I believe. I don’t think that in those cases it is a criminal act not to report the crime. There may be professional sanctions applied, even as far as loss of a job or loss of a “license to practice” the profession (in a particular jurisdiction), but whether a criminal case could be made against the witness (assuming the witness isn’t also a participant in the crime!) is doubtful.
There is a strong tendency for prosecutors to browbeat people into “doing their duty” to report criminal offenses, with attempts to use the law as a hammer (as noted by other respondents above), and there may be cases that are so cut-and-dried where it’s only questionable whether the reluctant witness was actually a knowing perpetrator of the crime or was somehow duped or coerced into silence, but still has full knowledge of the crime. But for most people, who may only have “strong suspicion” that a crime has even been committed – or that a particular crime was committed by someone known to the “witness” – the prosecutor’s problem with trying to enforce laws against aiding and abetting is proving to a jury “what someone knew”. Who can make the case against another that “he knew such-and-such”?
Even if you tell me face-to-face that you have committed a crime, for example, it’s easy for me to present from my own side of that conversation that I didn’t understand what you had said, thought you were joking, were being hyperbolic or overly dramatic, or were making some other point through metaphor, for example. And that’s assuming that I don’t make the bald assertion that I simply didn’t hear you or didn’t get the message in the first place. How can you prove otherwise? More to the point, how can a prosecutor?
Laws like this, if they exist at all, are somewhat counter-productive to real civil society, I think.