Let me suggest an approach based on demographics.
There are let's say 120 persons in the village, of which lets say 80 are adults comprising 50 different family groups, most of are closely related to each other. These 50 family groups are collected into 10-30 households, most of which are multi-family households working farms collectively. Marriage of 3rd or even 2nd cousins is not uncommon, and the village is divided into three main clans and handful of recent 'immigrants'.
Since this is a human community, 80% of the villagers (fully 96 of them) are neutral aligned with a rational, utilitarian, survivalist mentality. These people have no time for deep thought about ethical principles - they are concerned with putting bread on their table. While these people wouldn't refrain from theft or even murder to advance their own interest if they thought they could get away with it, they are also constrained by fear of retaliation or discovery as well as loosely both by their loyalty to kin and their respect for the communities traditions and their desire to be thought of well by their neighbors. Their considerations are, "From a rational perspective, will stealing gold or murdering kinsman improve my life?" Limited in education though they may be, few are so stupid as to think that. Instead, there will be some jealous bickering and jockeying for advantage, and perhaps some hard feelings, angry words, and maybe a fist thrown - but for the most part it doesn't make sense to act ruthlessly evil in this situation.
Of the 20% remaining, about half will represent the dominate ethical tradition of the larger community - whether a region with an independent ethnic tradition or a nation. For the majority of human nations, this is usually Lawful Good. This means that in our community of 120 has 12 Lawful Good individuals. These individuals will ascribe to the idea of the common good, and to the idea of benevolent mercy. They will lobby for the money to be used to help the community as a whole, and will strongly resist any sort of unlawful activity. They will be appalled by even the thought of responding to the PC's charitable and honorable act with any sort of uncharitable and dishonorable act.
The remaining 12 will be divided among the other 7 possible alignments, with those alignments further from the societies ethical norms being less and less common. So there might be 3 Neutral Good inhabitants of the village, whose sole concern will be benevolence - giving the money to those that need it most and would profit from it most. There might be 3 Lawful Neutral inhabitants of the village whose sole concern will be that the money is used for a communal purpose, regardless of whether that purpose helps those in need. The remaining six are distributed more or less equally in this case amongst Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil - about 1 each, with perhaps 2 Chaotic Goods or 2 Lawful Evils. Each of these might have their own reasons for engaging in either unlawful or unethical behavior (or both), but note that they'll largely be constrained from doing so by the fact that their position is such a minority one. Almost no one is going to support them in such an individual action. The Lawful Evil's in particular will respect any decision made by the lawful authority, even if it is one they themselves consider wasteful and foolish. The Chaotic Good's will respect any decision that is at least somewhat benevolent and would only engage in theft probably if necessary to save someone's life and no other option was available. They certainly aren't going to kill someone over money, least of all for their own profit. Some Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil NPC with no loyalty at all to the community, might try to abscond with the funds and flee the community but that's the worst they'd plan. Some Neutral Evil character might plot some sort evil against the community as a whole, but its doubtful a village actually contains a diabolical mastermind and a Neutral Evil character isn't going to be triggered into action unless this situation offers them leverage. That is to say, NE's aren't motivated by personal advantage so greed isn't as important to them as seeing other people suffer. In reality, what we are dealing with is probably a sociopath that expresses their lack of compassion by spreading gossip and slander, not missing a chance to stir up trouble with his neighbors, or to point out flaws, make up insults, belittle those that have made mistakes, and generally poison people's opinions. That's plenty evil without it expressing itself through acts of murder and the like.
And because of the demographics here, it's even more constrained than that. At least some of those aligned characters are children, with limited ability to influence adult affairs. Because of the limited social opportunities in the community, it's highly likely that most aligned characters are socially joined (by marriage for example) to neutrally aligned characters that will act as something of a check on individual action. You aren't going to murder someone if you know your wife is going to be upset you robbed or murdered of her cousin, and at the very least the fact that the 6-8 people who are in your household won't necessarily back your actions are going to act as a check on any plan because it's going to make it harder to get away with.
So for a village, at worst, some single CE character commits a single murder and runs off with the equivalent of few thousand dollars. That's the realistic response here, and even it doesn't seem to be likely given the circumstances. Sure, the dominate national morality might be CE, and the alignment of the local authority figures will matter a great deal, and if the morale of the nation is low there might be some sort of philosophical turmoil that means the dominate morality is being challenged by a dissident morality, but even then plots of the sort imagined in the original post seem unlikely.
Moreover, the amount of funds in question is so small, that once it is distributed it's not going to be a great temptation to anyone. A reasonable distribution is the village elder gives a 1/3rd share to his lord, and then distributes 6-8 g.p to each person in the village. 400 g.p. is a small share of the lord's value, and 8 g.p. per family member in the household is nice bonus, but is not in fact a huge share of the household's collective worth. It's like the worth of sheep or a trained hunting dog. There is nothing now left to tempt bandits into desperate acts.
