This document has some claims and a related report and journal article, Use it if you are stuck for ideas on the literature review..
Some claims about cheating you can either agree or disagree

Claim 1 one reason why you should give students an assignment about cheating is that gives students an example of how government agencies place demands on a business. The fact that many students that blatantly cheat and get 0 but still argue say their mark needs to be changed clearly do not understand this.

Claim 2
It is difficult to do a proper literature review, they are not experts and they are not used to how academics describe the problem, However they do get a benefit from looking at actual journal articles and seeing how they discuss a specific problem and review the literature. If a student cheats by getting an essay from a website that makes fake essays they will not actually learn anything.

Sections on a government report related to the claims about cheating
For your literature review you have to refer to a government report on cheating
“Report on Student Academic Integrity and Allegations of Contract Cheating by University Students”

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/ReportOnAllegationsOfStudentMisconduct.pdf

The following statements are relevant to claim 1 and claim 2
“Contract cheating – the purchase of another person’s work to present as your own – has a long history. Recently, the ready availability of sophisticated communication technology and the rise of social media have increased the opportunity to access and/or repurpose another’s work to present as your own. Availability of essay writing services is pervasive with both local and international websites advertising their services. A number of assessment strategies have been devised to minimise the opportunity for such fraudulent activity by students and to detect it when it occurs. However it should be noted that the efficacy of such strategies has not been established and the favoured way to combat such behavior is by the promotion of academic integrity in the student body. Approaches to assessment and promotion of good student conduct are discussed in the next section of this report”

“It is often considered that essays purchased through essay mills are less likely to be detected by anti-plagiarism software because they are kept behind firewalls and are supposedly bespoke products. However, this is not the experience of all providers (eg University of Sydney). Purchased work is usually detected because the quality of the academic content and/or language is significantly superior to the student’s usual performance in class or because the answer provided has a generic quality rather than addressing the specifics of the assignment task. It is widely regarded that the best way to detect and deter contract cheating is to “know your students”.”
Sections of journal article related to claims against cheating.

The following journal article discusses cheating
“Detecting the work of essay mil ls and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind” http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=gsbpapers The following sections of the article are related to claim 1 and claim 2 “Many students references do not exist or are not on the internet so there is no way the student can read them
If students actually find the reference the author names were missing, and finer details such as issue numbers, volume numbers, and page numbers were different to the original papers as reflected in the journal databases (see Figures 1 and compare it to the actual reference)

The actual reference is
Edmondson, A.. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. http://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

The students seemed genuinely shocked, but had no explanation for the differences. It seems that some ghost writers, or mills may alter aspects of legitimate references, so that the reference appears correct (see Figure 1), but in actual fact is misrepresented (see the actual reference). These misrepresentations are not always obvious in Turnitin, and cannot be found by visual examination.
People grading papers do not have the time to individually check references to detect this, and for this reason essay mills and ghost-writers can limit the possibilities for detection.

A form of misrepresentation that could be detected via a visual check was where bibliographic ‘mashups’ were identified. References are created through a mix of journal, newspaper and/or book information combined into the one fictitious reference. An example of a bibliographic ‘mashup’ is presented in Figure 3. The reference in Figure 3 shows the ‘Journal of Economy’ which does not exist, and notes that it is the ‘Queensland edition – when journals are not published on a state basis. Finally the author name ‘Tribune’ was found to be the Herald Tribune newspaper when the ‘reference’ was Googled, and led to a file-swapping site in China. A copy of the file swapping site page matched to the reference is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 3 Bibliographic Mashup

Figure 4 File-swapping website match

The student was asked to find the reference during the interview, and tried searching through the University of Wollongong library databases, and became very frustrated when she could not locate the reference. When the student was shown the link to the file-swapping site, the argument changed. They stated that there was a Mr Tribune and it was a real reference. The student did not want to believe the lecturer that the Herald Tribune was a newspaper. There were two other students who had references that appeared with a similar style of ‘bibliographic mashup’ however searches via Google, Firefox and Internet Explorer could not detect the source. Throughout the course of the interviews with students a pattern of clues emerged which facilitated easier detection of material that had not been authored by the student, had been written by someone else, or repurposed by re-engineering prior student submissions. Any issues that required further action under the UOW Academic Integrity and Plagiarism policy, took place under due process with appropriate penalties applied. Others where the interviews could not confirm or deny the use of unauthorised materials were marked at face value – subsequently many of these students failed the subject due to their performance in the final exam demonstrating that the students had little understanding of the content despite 11 weeks of lectures and tutorials”