IMHO the consultants and lobbyists benefit from such convulted loopholes .
These setups are only possible for large consultants to deliver for large consultants and policy makers have plausible deniability when there is no obvious loopholes and benefit from lobbying perks , revoking doors, election donations if not outright corruption.
Also for those who are better versed with law, is it possible that companies can legally defend actions like this by arguing they are maximizing shareholder legally and thus, they are obligated to do so?
An example I'm quite familiar with; the Ferrari Formula 1 team used an engine in (at least) 2019, and possibly earlier too, that had momentary higher fuel flow than allowed by the regulations. The regulations were very clear that at no time the flow was to be larger than 100 kg per hour.
The hurdle: enforcing the fuel flow into an engine, running at 12,000 RPM, is hard when you're not the one building it. So the FIA, the governing body, commissioned a fuel flow device that would sit in the fuel line between the tank and the engine, and measure the throughput. The flow was/is measured almost 5,000 times per second.
Ferrari found out how it worked, and simply produced higher throughput when the fuel flow monitor wasn't reading the flow. Entirely genius but highly illegal. Between 2019 and 2020 they were found out, and for the 2020 season they were considerably slower because their engine was designed to use the fuel flow workaround.
TL;DR: even perfectly designed regulations can have problems when it comes to figuring out if something is being broken. In this example, Ferrari got off without a penalty because they in turn helped the governing body figure out a way to catch anyone doing the same thing. This rule break was suspected by competitors and fans alike for the best part of the 2019 series. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue shock. Figuring out what exactly is being done illegally is just not that easy in large, opaque systems.