It would be called “unlawful”
Penalty clauses in contracts are void as being against public policy. That is because only government has the power to punish wrongdoing - private citizens don’t.
The normal remedy for failing to perform obligations under a contract is damages. That is, the wronged party must be put in the same financial position (as far as possible) as if the breach had not occurred.
Further, because the relief against penalties can be an equitable one, rather than at law, a charge can be a penalty even if there is no breach of contract.
Liquidated damages clauses which agree a genuine pre-estimate or the damage an event will cause and are cognisant of their proportionality with respect to the contract and the parties relative bargaining power are not penalties. Nor are charges for the provision of additional or different services from the charging party.
The type of clause you outline is almost certainly a penalty unless the party receiving the money will genuinely believes they will lose $100,000 (or thereabouts) if the event happens.
This is a good summary of the state of the law in Australia. Other common law jurisdictions vary on what is and is not a penalty but the basic principle is the same: damages are allowed, penalties are not.