That’s a nice reply.
James should be tickled until he says he was just kidding, and then receive a firm handshake for helping out with the raffle.
So if I find a wallet, technically it’s mine?
The acquaintance made the decision to buy a ticket, he has the ticket, and he owes $1 for the ticket regardless of whether it wins or loses.
James just loaned him $1, so he just gets $1 back. It doesn’t matter whether it was for a winning ticket or a candy bar.
what if it’s $640 million in negotiable bearer bonds?
Before James approached the distributor of the prize, I would have been inclined to say that the friend gets the prize, and legally owes Jamesa buck, while the codes of friendship would suggest that the friend “owes” James fifty cents plus half the value of the prize (HEAVY emphasis on those scare quotes).
With the added wrinkle of James’s reported behavior, however, I have to concur with 90% of the other posters. The holder of the ticket owes James a buck, and owns the prize outright. James has shown himself to be, not a friend, but a bookie.
While it’s true that we have been told we have no access to any further inforrmation that might lend nuance to the issue, I cannot ignore the knowledge that I already possess about how raffles work; and I find myself struggling to envision a raffle in which a James is able to come forward the way this one did, without arousing deep suspicions about his methods and motivations.
Ok OP, you’ve got some solid poll results. Time to come clean about being James. 
Not me. My moms boyfriend. I find the 10 to 1 results interesting
The acquaintance has rights to the prize, James, however, should not mention that it won unless the acquaintance coughs up the $1.
Why?
If James assumed he would be reimbursed by his friend then clearly the interaction was just a loan of a dollar which his friend owes him but the ticket rightfully belongs to his friend.
If James knew he wasn’t going to get paid, but decided to sponsor his friend out of the goodness of his heart, then the ticket is a present and rightfully belongs to his friend.
If James had no intention of being paid back or of giving the ticket to his friend, then why didn’t he just buy his own damn ticket and leave his friend out of it.
The only scenario in which it makes sense for him to buy a ticket for his friend and yet maintain ownership would be if he was unable to buy his own ticket due to the rules of the contest, and used his friend as a straw purchaser, in which case he commited fraud and deserves what he gets.
In our state at least, you can’t buy lottery tickets with a credit card. I suppose it’s because you might dispute the charge after you find that you lost. However, debit cards can be accepted, since they operate like a check card or a paper check, which the merchant has the option to accept.
If it was about protecting the credit card company it would be a regulation in your credit card agreement rather than a law. Laws against using credit cards for gambling/lotteries are, AFAIK, about protecting the gambler from losing money they do not have.
James sold the ticket to the acquaintance - it says as much in the question. This is no different than if James had bought the ticket and then given it to the acquaintance.
This reminds me of an incident in the California lottery years ago. A woman tried to buy a ticket with a specified set of numbers, but the cashier punched up six identical tickets by mistake. The cashier asked the woman if she wanted to buy the other five tickets, and she declined, so, in accordance with store policy, he paid for the tickets himself. You guessed it; the numbers won, and those were the only tickets that had them. The woman tried to sue, claiming, “Since those tickets were printed by mistake, they should be void, and I should get the entire jackpot instead of just 1/6 of it.”