Which IMO just makes everyone liable, the law usually doesn't look favourably upon intentionally tricky bullshit.
A transaction has only one source, so that payout is obviously attributable to the source transaction. If the mixer gave you 5 BTC from Whore, you're holding Whore bitcoins. If the mixer gave you 5 BTC from Kingpin, you're holding Kingpin bitcoins.
In your example, the original owner of the whore coins would end up with the kingpin coins and vice versa.
It is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler
But the protocol doesn't reflect the reality of the mixer; the mixer is built on top of the protocol. Within the protocol, those coins are still linked, allowing perfect tracking of coins as they pass through the mixer.
You can argue in court that your kingpin coins aren't really kingpin coins, but you'll always be hamstrung by the evidence. What you really have are plainly-labeled kingpin coins and an admission to purposefully receiving contraband.
Now, the rules of operation of the mixer may (and in practice, definitely do) invalidate that link in reality, but it still exists in the protocol and can be the subject of legislation.
[1] For example, if the mixer wallet is created with nothing and receives 100 BTC from 8 other wallets, there's no record that looks like "Mixer Wallet: 100 BTC". Instead, there's a set of records that looks like this:
And payouts from the mixer create records that are in turn explicitly sourced from those. This mixer can't pay out more than 52 BTC in a single transaction, because that is the largest single amount it received.