Oh come on. We aren't told anything in the txt about where all the money came from. Are we then to conclude: 1. NONE of it came from an immoral source or act, or 2. SOME of it did, and that part was rejected, but it isn't an important enough issue to be included in the narrative, or 3. SOME of it did but that wasn't important.
Go ahead. Argue that all those thousands of newly-converted beleivers in Acts got all the property they sold for the church by moral means.