Doubtful (see scare potential at FT, picked up by many others). The analogy to Enron is not applicable because there are more players to this game. Enron could game California's energy market because they were the clear dominant player, and too few people were looking at it. Further, Enron was gaming the system so that those implementing the plan were making the money. Player A was making money for player A, as opposed to having player A make money for player B. Collusions, like secrets, are very hard to keep as the number of players goes from 1 to 5. Ever try to keep a great secret with 5 of your best friends in school?
Consider the scenario where the asset management arm of Citibank buys assets of JPMorgan, in an implicit quid-pro quo with JPMorgan's asset management group buying assets from Citibank. The criticism implies the asset management group is overpaying for these assets. The benefit of this collusion occurs at the Corporate Level, not to asset management, which expects to lose money. Thus, there would have to be discussions between the CEOs and their Asset Management chiefs on the 'plan' with emphasis than this plan must be seen in the 'bigger picture'. Supposedly, the Asset Management players would be promised some kind of future cushy job instead of bonus payment. Further, this strategy would be risky because the banks with the targeted assets are not the majority of only players lined up to bid on these securities. If they are overbidding, Treasury officials should see a clear pattern (winning bid disproportionately from a bank-owned asset manager), and one would have to hope Treasury is too stupid to figure it out (probability between zero and 1).
So, for the asset management group at Citi (or Goldman, or wherever), your grand conspiracy is crowded, convoluted, illegal, and uncertain. Would you play such a game?