I suspect educational institutions don't want to be seen as organizations that sue their own researchers. Same with paper publishers. And same for grant issuers.
Downstream researchers? Do they have the time, the money? ability to show direct damages whose recompense would be worth all the effort?
Students affected perhaps could, but only if the effect was very direct and they had the resources. And desire to be known as someone who sues their professor.
The damage is usually so diffuse. There is no one party with all the reasons to sue.
I have no idea what the process would be for criminal prosecution, but the diffuse impact may be an inhibitory factor there too.
Obviously that doesn't apply in setting like drug development where standards do exist, as defined by the best currently available treatments. But if someone is working on something like psychological studies where replicability is the exception rather than the rule, or on exotic tech where only one experimental facility might exist, or on substances or effects that exist only under weird conditions, it's not always that easy (or that safe) to accuse them of lying. Even when you're pretty sure they are.
And there are plenty of fields where you have different interpretations of the same data (see the entire field of economics, also plenty in physics and other fields). Should the people who espoused ether theory be sued for fraud? It'll be a huge mess because doing research is by definition doing something unprecedented.
But there's also the old and established parts, like statistics, parts of the experimental setup, methodology, reporting data accurately (or at all). This is plenty enough to have objective standards for.
A lot of fraud is not in making up experimental results, but instead misreporting the data and drawing unsupported conclusions.