John S. Martin served as U.S. attorney and U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Philip Allen Lacovara served as counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, deputy solicitor general and president of the D.C. Bar.

On his last day in office, President Donald Trump issued pardons to 74 people and commuted the sentences for 70 others. For most recipients, the impact of Trump’s actions is simple: They get out of jail or legal jeopardy.

More complicated are the last-minute pardons that Trump extended to some of his friends and allies, particularly political strategist Stephen K. Bannon. It would be a mistake to think that Bannon’s pardon gives him a free pass. He still has a lot to worry about.

Pardons do not take effect automatically. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court explained that, for a presidential pardon to be effective, it must be “accepted” by the person offered the pardon. Significantly, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1833, the decision to accept a pardon is an admission of guilt.

As a consequence, people offered a pardon who insist that they are innocent of the charges have the right to a trial to clear their name. But if they decide to accept the pardon, they convey to the world that they committed the crime and have been spared some of the consequences.

This was made clear in the dismissal of the indictment against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, whom Trump also pardoned. In agreeing to dismiss the indictment, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan emphasized that Flynn, after twice pleading guilty, had formally “accepted” the pardon. The judge characterized a presidential pardon as a “political decision.” But the pardon “does not, standing alone, render [Flynn] innocent of the alleged violation” of a federal criminal statute. Instead, the judge extensively explained all the reasons why, in fact, Flynn actually was guilty, as his invoking the pardon necessarily acknowledged.

The same principle applies to the pardon that Trump granted Charles Kushner, the father of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared. In 2004, Kushner had pleaded guilty to 18 counts of a federal indictment charging him with illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. He served 14 months in prison. His pardon does not imply that he was not guilty of those crimes, and it entitles him to no apology for the time he spent in jail. For him to accept the pardon, he must again effectively confirm his guilt.

The fact that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt poses a serious dilemma for Bannon, who has been accused, along with others, of defrauding donors who wanted to contribute to building Trump’s infamous “wall” along our southern border. Bannon originally proclaimed his innocence, vowed to fight the charges and asserted “this entire fiasco is to stop people who want to build the wall.” If he now goes into court and accepts the pardon to have the charges dismissed, he will thereby admit his guilt — in direct contradiction of his earlier protests of innocence.

Even if, as is likely, Bannon is prepared to invoke the pardon and thus admit his guilt, the resulting dismissal of the charges against him may not be the end of his entanglement in the border wall fundraising fraud. No doubt, Bannon has highly important testimony about the alleged scheme. Since acceptance of the pardon would protect Bannon from federal prosecution, the U.S. attorney may well decide to give Bannon formal “testimonial” immunity to force him to testify against his co-defendants or others involved in the fraudulent scheme. With this protection, Bannon would have no basis to refuse to testify. If he tried to clam up, he would be sent to jail for contempt.

In addition to calling Bannon as a witness against his co-defendants at their trial, the prosecutors could call him before a grand jury to question him about the possible culpability of others not yet indicted. In either case, if Bannon falsely denies facts establishing his own guilt, or that of his co-defendants, he will expose himself to prosecution for perjury. Since any perjury will occur after the pardon was issued, the pardon will not protect him from prosecution for a new crime.

Moreover, accepting the pardon may prove financially costly for Bannon. By implicitly admitting his complicity in bilking Trump supporters who thought that they were helping to fund the border wall, Bannon’s acceptance of the pardon may be treated as a damning admission in lawsuits against him seeking to recoup the misdirected contributions. In addition, a presidential pardon only excuses federal crimes, but it does not protect Bannon from state prosecutors.

It is uncertain how the case against Bannon will proceed. He will either accept the pardon and live with the consequences of admitting his guilt, or go to trial and face the possibility of being convicted and going to prison. In either event, like anyone offered a pardon, he will not be able to maintain his claim of innocence unless he opts to stand trial rather than accept the pardon — and then only if a jury finds him “not guilty.” Trump’s offer of a pardon hardly wipes the slate clean.