This is where your argument (and the previous argument, to a certain extent) break down. I imagine it would very much be a crime for Gawker to a) transfer $200,000 across an international border, and b) dump it into the bank account (or whatever) of anyone known to be connected to the drug trade.
Imagine this headline, removed from context: "$200,000 bag of cash shows up on front door of known drug dealer's house." We wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the guy should keep the money, unless we're arch-libertarians (in which case we would be arguing from a weak position with respect to the actual criminal code). Even if we say that there was only a 10% chance that this deal would end with Gawker people in front of a judge, there's no way that their own legal team would let that go down.
Gawker very quietly dumped the money into the hands of some good charities, with little explanation as to the events that led up to their decision(s). I'm guessing they found out the easy way that the transaction couldn't happen, thereby avoiding finding out the hard way.