Chess.com does give rating points back when a cheater is banned. IIRC not every time though (?) so maybe some room for improvement here.
---
Chess.com has, again AFAIK, the most advanced chess cheat detection around. They've put a lot of money into it... WAY more accurate than asking people what they think a game looks like. Chess is much more esoteric. Even very strong players won't know for sure if someone is cheating, unless the cheating is the easiest to notice (the kind where a person plays the top engine pic every move at a regular interval).
What? As of right now, Chess.com has no noteworthy anti-cheat detection of any kind. Their anti-cheat is the simplest of all online chess websites, if you play 100% engine lines for too many games it'll catch you. With any kind of variation, their "anti-cheat" does not trigger. This is why Chess.com is known in the online chess community as a website that more or less soft-allows engine use. As long as you aren't brutally blatant with it, using an engine is tolerated.
The reason for this isn't some sort of philosophical decision making, but simply that Chess.com considers investing in anti-cheat as harming their profit margin. Which is why I believe the overwatch system is best for a website like Chess.com, as it is highly automated and requires very little if any upkeep costs once active. As such, profit margins wouldn't be hurt.
I have a few suggestions based on systems that Valve has implemented in their videogame CSGO (Counter-Strike:Global Offensive) that I think are crucial for Chess.com to improve the quality of this website.
Just like online chess, online videogames often struggle with cheaters. is one example of such a game that is plagued with cheaters in the ranked mode. However they have two things going for them, which help a lot in mediating these issues.
The first is very simple, when a cheater gets banned, all their wins get nullified. In the case of CSGO this means everyone who ever lost to that account, gains the MMR they lost back. And everyone who won games with that account, loses the MMR they have gained. In the case of Chess.com, rather than MMR you would simply gain back the rating you lost to a cheater. This should be fairly easy to implement and would go a long way in dealing with the frustration of getting cheated against. Right now, even if they get banned, you wont get your hard-earned rating back for that. This causes people to be upset and frustrated. But if they know that, even though they've lost, they'll gain that rating back eventually, then people would be a lot more relaxed even if they get cheated against.
The second suggestion, that would be a bit harder to implement, is the overwatch system. In CSGO there are two ways to get banned for cheating. The first is that the anti-cheat detects your third-party cheats and automatically bans you. The second however is more ingenious. It's a system where players that get reported a lot get the replay of their game put up for review, not by moderators but by other players. These players can watch the game without knowing the reported player's name or rank and then judge if they consider it beyond reasonable doubt that the player in question is cheating. Now this is a pretty complex system, in which the weight of each individual player's judgement differs from each other depending on how often their judgements are considered correct and also on their rated rank.
This system would be perfect for Chess.com. Player's that get reported, should get a set of games that have been reported randomly selected and put up for analysis by other players. Their rating and name should be hidden. Then players can judge if they consider it likely the reported player is cheating.
While it requires some initial man-power and thus money to implement, afterwards its an near-automated system that requires very little interaction from chess.com to keep active. As such, this system should be very appealing for chess.com and should save on labor-costs over manually inspecting games, as now you have your players doing it for you rather than your staff.