> [If one assumes that the candidate] would have been able to perform the job duties I'm not sure why [they] should care.

This is what I mean; I can see why an interviewer thinks they've been cheated or that a candidate was dishonest but that doesn't mean that the interviewer even has a successful system for determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat from a less biased perspective. What is that interviewer even thinking? How could that person have cheated?

This suggestion that a person who can adequately perform job duties could have even possibly cheated in their job interview is intellectually dishonest. If they had to cheat to get the job we should be looking at the interviewer. Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? Why is whatever-they-did even considered cheating?