This is a big part of the reason we have judges, and why we should not replace them with LLMs.
Generally, I think the common-law notion of "consideration + chance + prize" augmented with the requirement of an "insurable interest" (in order to keep the insurance industry legal) discerns the truth well enough. Insisting that any "prize" not be monetary or monetarily-convertible keeps it from becoming a cyclical addiction, and evaluating infractions relative to volume keeps extremists from banning gumball machines and Kinder eggs.
Right, so because "judges have to follow the exact letter of the law" in the countries you have in mind, somehow my view is US-centric, although I'm from Sweden and I live in Spain, never visited US nor been in any US court ever? Both countries I'm familiar with, have purposive interpretation rules.
You can share that in other places it might be different, compared to how it works in the places I'm familiar with, without chucking insults around, especially insults you uninspiringly basically said in every recent comment of yours, at least make it unique.
To actually make this a somewhat interesting conversation instead of just pooping words, as I just tried that and didn't find it as fun as you did; what specific countries are you talking about, how does it work there, and how little corruption do those countries have compared to say Sweden?