Kid: [dashes into kitchen, pursued by cousin]
Adult: Out of the kitchen!
Kid: Sorry! [Continues their path, leaving through the other door; escapes pursuit from more rule-abiding cousin]

This doesn't work! The kid got what they wanted out of this interaction, and isn't going to change their behavior. Instead, I need to make it be not worth their while:

Kid: [dashes into kitchen, pursued by cousin]
Adult: No cutting through the kitchen! [Physically rebuffs intruder]!
Kid: Sorry! [Forced to leave through the door they entered by; caught by cousin.]

Other examples:

• Sneak candy, spit it out and forfeit dessert.

• Use sibling's tablet time, lose your own.

• Interrupt, be ignored.

The general principle is that if you want to limit behavior the combination of the gains from rule-breaking and penalty from punishment need to put the kid in a worse position than if they'd never broken the rule.

This isn't just a parenting thing: it's common to say that "crime should not pay", and many legal systems prohibit unjust enrichment. One place I'd like to see this implemented is airplane evacuation. If the safety announcements included "In the event of an emergency evacuation, any carry-on luggage you bring will be confiscated and destroyed. You will also be fined." we would have more JAL 516 (379 occupants, zero deaths) and less Aeroflot 1492 or Emirates 521.