Bava Metzia 6A

ואלא הא דאמר רב נחמן משביעין אותו שבועת היסת, נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא.

The Talmud asks: But if one who is suspected of theft cannot be administered an oath, that which Rav Naḥman says, that when a person denies a debt entirely the judges administer an oath of inducement to him, is difficult. Let us say that since he is suspect with regard to financial dishonesty, he is suspect with regard to taking an oath.

ותו הא דתני רבי חייא: שניהם נשבעין ונוטלין מבעל הבית, נימא מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא.

And furthermore, that which R' Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita with regard to the case of the storekeeper and the laborer (see 3a), that both parties take an oath and take payment from the employer, is also difficult. Let us say there, too, that since he is suspect with regard to financial dishonesty, he is suspect with regard to taking an oath.

ותו הא דאמר רב ששת, שלש שבועות משביעין אותו: שבועה שלא פשעתי בה, שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד, שבועה שאינה ברשותי. נימא: מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא.

And furthermore, with regard to that which Rav Sheshet says: The judges administer 3 oaths to an unpaid bailee who claims that the deposit with which he was entrusted was stolen: I hereby take an oath that I was not negligent in safeguarding it; I hereby take an oath that I did not misappropriate the deposit; and I hereby take an oath that it is no longer in my possession, there is the same difficulty. Since the court raises these suspicions against the bailee, let us say that since he is suspected of financial dishonesty, he is suspected with regard to taking an oath. How can the court administer these oaths?

אלא לא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא.

Rather, the conclusion from all of the above is that we do not say that since one is suspected of financial dishonesty, he is suspected with regard to taking an oath.