I think cui bono is misapplied here.
- Any suitably large event is going to create an upset in the order of things and there will be those who profit from it.
- Cui bono is meant to guide an investigation but is not in of itself evidence of anything.
- The more people that cui bono points at, the less likely any single one of them is guilty.
In my country there was a spate of earthquakes. If I apply cui bono, without any other evidence, then I'm correct to conclude that the earthquakes were caused by politicians, the construction industry, and the insurance providers.
I guess my point is that the ability of cui bono to indicate very much at all is very diluted as the size of the event and the number of the accused increases.