No. From the Justice Department's own criminal resource manual:
> the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are:
> (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money;
> (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud;
> (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and
> (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
Generally, to be successfully prosecuted for a crime, the prosecutor has to show that each and every "element" of the crime has to have happened. On the above page, there were 3 different court precedents who ruled what elements that the prosecutor needed to prove were in those cases.
I can't shake the feeling that there may be political reasons to not even attempt that angle. What legal precedent would it set if a judge actually ruled on that and the prosecution won? Which entities within the government would be financially inconvenienced?
Is it true with these markets the more people bet on a specific day and time, the value will increase more, increasing the overall payout? If that is true, I wonder if they're looking at anybody else helping place the bets or a group of people trying to wager a higher amount of money to increase the return?
Think about it: you have N market makers offering both sides of the trade with a spread between them. When there is no other meaningful activity, the best prices are more or less stable. Now someone comes in and buys one side of the trade. Each marker maker will, individually, make the same two decisions:
1. "If you bought at that price, I should raise my price and charge you more"
2. "Since you bought at that price, I must assume you have more information and I should get out the way to avoid an expensive mistake"