A victim of digital arrest cyber fraud lost funds transferred to a mule account, with some money withdrawn before the account could be frozen. Although the bank refunded part of the amount, the victim sought the remainder through the District Consumer Commission. The Commission initially questioned the victim's standing due to lack of direct contract with the bank. However, the discussion highlights the need for case law to support maintaining such complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, especially when dealing with fraud and tainted funds.