A stack of cash is nice, but kinda impractical - there is a reason why mafia expends significant resources on money laundering. In this case, both parties can claim that they did "a trade" that had an economic meaning and unless there is other evidence there is nothing to charge them with, no matter how improbable that is. The future president of the US has done some serious futures trades that are even more improbable but nothing stuck.
What's with this "she's only a teacher" crap? It's very possible that, as SLE pointed out, there's something shady going on. That has nothing to do with the both nonsensical and highly insulting idea that any who was once a teacher lacks the intellectual capacity to put on option trades. Now if you'd said "she's only a member of congress" you might be on to something...
Look like that congresswoman more sophisticated than Hillary. She is options spreads trader. Look at her net worth grow over the years. Not bad for former teacher.
I did some more detailed analysis and while I get your concept it seems highly unlikely here. On 6/28 it looks like she sold an Aug 19 1950/1900 put credit spread on SPX. On 6/28 the S&P500 had a low of 2006, so that was a spread starting roughly 50 points below spot roughly 45 days out. I know this is a very rough comparison both with times and current implied vol, but when I price out a Sep 23 2125/2075 put credit spread today I get -8.30/-7.30. If you were trying to execute that at the best price you could as a seller of the spread you'd be able to get 5 cents past mid, so $7.75. If you tried to loose money on it as a buyer of the spread, the worst you could do would be to pay $8.25, a delta of only $.50. That seems like a pretty inefficient way to transfer money, I'm showing a margin of $6,000 for that spread so I could only lay on <3 contracts in the $1,000 to $15,000 band, netting me $150 of "transferred" money.
