Is it permissible for a son to take from his father's wealth, and a wife from her husband's wealth, if all the wealth is illicit, and what is the most preponderant opinion on this matter?

This issue is a matter of scholarly disagreement. The preponderant opinion is that the sin of ill-gotten gains, due to the manner of their acquisition, rests upon the acquirer, not upon the one who receives them through a permissible means, unlike something that is inherently forbidden. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, interacted with Jews who engaged in usury. According to the other opinion, the degree of reprehensibility varies depending on the abundance or scarcity of the ill-gotten wealth. Wealth that is forbidden due to its acquisition is unlawful only for the acquirer. If the one who acquired it dies, their wealth becomes permissible for their heirs.