In Finland all kickstarter style fundraisers are explicitly illegal, so is this. Basically any collection of money requires a special permit that is only handed to certain charitable causes etc. Otherwise it's paid work and has totally different rules governing it.
In this case the person would have to prove that they're not involved with tip4commit. Quite likely the prosecutor would simply say that you're cheating and are trying to circumvent the law this way. Because how improbable it is that someone would collect money for you even if you wouldn't want to?
So yeah. In some countries it might become a big problem.
I don't think it would work out this way. Looking at tip4commit would make it quite clear that you don't have to be involved. And why would you have to prove that you are not involved instead of having the prosecutor prove the opposite? No not-guilty-until-proven in Finland?
Recently an exhibition called "Beer and Whiskey expo" was under threat due to it's name. Mention of Whiskey can be said to be an advertisement of strong alcohol. So they changed the name and it become just the Beer expo. After that they were informed that they will be denied permits unless individual bloggers with no connection to them would also remove mentions of Whiskey in their posts about the expo.
So yeah. Actions of individuals whom you have no connection with can count against you here. Especially if the regulators think that you might be benefiting of them in some way, thus basically trying to cheat the system.
Remember this. Not every country follows the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
I'm quite sure it can have consequences (just don't think it will). Some countries have declared bitcoin to be illegal (see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Bitcoin_by_country for details), so it may be enough to participate in a scheme where receiving them is typical to put someone in jeopardy.
As to punishing somebody for actions of others, that is perhaps not typical (although I think some countries actually do punish women for the actions of men, finding examples left as an excercise for the reader). However, you can cause considerable trouble for sending items (say, by international mail) which are legal in your jurisdiction to someone in whose jurisdiction they are not allowed. I'm living in a relatively modern western society, but would still prefer you did not send me cash, drugs or weapons to me with or without my knowledge.
But you did not participate unless you define participate as having your name show up in some database. For your other examples, yes, you can of course become suspect and get some trouble if somebody wants to, but still someone has to prove that you are actually responsible. I meant it in the sense of getting fined, arrested or whatnot, not in the sense of costing you time which may of course not be negligible in serious cases.
In the same way that a company can be 'punished' for not defending a brand name: silence, in the face of knowledge of actions, is taken as tacit acceptance of those actions.
When I wrote the comment I had exactly this in mind, too. But in the case of a trademark you actually agree to this - you are granted the protection but this comes with the obligation to defend it. Or the way you are allowed to drive your care but only if you keep it safe to use.
Having a balance on this site, even if it's zero, can have severe implications for the maintainer(s).