I'm assuming they are gutting the apparatus that prevent and prosecute fraud because they want their designated enemies to be punished for fraud based only on accusation and not at all on evidence. More bluntly, they want only their own say-so to stand as the actionable evidence of fraud, and by having an actual apparatus in place designed to ferret out actual fraud, they would have to use it to prove fraud, which would frequently backfire on them, and they can't allow that to happen. Thus, they are pushing for a system where their mere accusation is both de facto and de jure evidence.