You seem to presume all of these cases are involuntary.

This seems like an excellent way to siphon public funds. Get infected by "malware", pay "ransom". Voilà, public funds are now some cryptocurrency under your control.

It would surprise me if this has never happened.

Replacing regular corruption, which is often "unethical but legal" or "barely punished", with a federal crime that is known to be harshly prosecuted doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

You have a good point that the standards could be different for individuals vs organizations.

My point is simply that Grandma shouldn’t go to jail or be punished because she got hacked and a hacker made her pay to get her grandkids photos back. If you’re saying we shouldn’t let state governments do the same I think that’s reasonable.

it is however a crime to give money to terrorist organizations. So the wording "free to" really means do you think it should be legal to do so.

But how are we supposed to tell whether a given bitcoin wallet is controlled by terrorists?