Wallstreetbets, page-80

The law on "intent" in most western jurisdictions is more sophisticated than your analysis.If it were simply the case that actual subjective intention as to all the necessary elements had to be proved (and intention generally is a necessary element to make a criminal case---"mens rea") a simple denial, in the absence of extraneous proof would always be enough to defeat a prosecution.Two points:

1.Intent can be inferred from conduct.The nature of the conduct and the number of times it occurred and the predictability of the unlawful outcome and the level of understanding and expertise and sophistication of the alleged perpetrator, are relevant, but not the only relevant factors to
support the necessary inferences

2.The law in Australia recognizes the concept of öbjective" intent. " At the risk of oversimplification, this may be seen as conduct which was deliberately undertaken and which a fair minded , reasonably informed and detached observer would regard as unlawful having regard to its likely consequences (.whether or not that was a subjectively held intent.)

The more difficult part , I think, may be to establish the necessary collusion. Again inferences are available.