youTuber's kanaal verwijderd na prankcall met verdachte dodelijke schietpartij
Amsterdam, zaterdag, 25 april 2026.
Het YouTube-kanaal van Rouand YT is permanent verwijderd. Dit gebeurde nadat bleek dat hij kort voor de schietpartij in Amsterdam een betaalde prankcall pleegde met Efe Y., de verdachte in de zaak. Tijdens het gesprek noemde Rouand YT de man een ‘grote deal’, wat diep irriteerde. Efe Y. heeft schizofrenie en psychoses. Na het telefoongesprek reed hij naar de blauwe brug in het Piet Wiedijkpark. Daar schoot hij zonder waarschuwing op drie jongens. Twee overleden, een overleefde ternauwernood. Het Openbaar Ministerie beschouwt Rouand YT als getuige, maar onderzoekt of zijn actie de schietpartij direct uitlokte. De slachtoffers waren 16, 17 en 18 jaar oud.
platform takes action after controversy
The YouTube platform permanently removed the channel of Rouand YT on April 25, 2026, following confirmation of his involvement in a prank call preceding a deadly shooting in Amsterdam [1]. A spokesperson confirmed the removal resulted from a violation of community guidelines, stating: “We have assessed the channel and determined it violates our policies” [2]. This marks a decisive step by the platform amid growing scrutiny over harmful online behavior tied to real-world violence [3]. The decision comes hours before a promised legal statement from the creator’s representative.
creator shifts stance under legal pressure
Rouand YT initially denied any connection to the prank call that preceded the New Year’s Day tragedy [4]. He claimed to be on vacation in Egypt and asserted he did not conduct a livestream that day [5]. However, faced with evidence including a recorded copy of the conversation obtained by prosecutors, his defense reversed course [5]. His attorney, Gerald Roethof, acknowledged the denial could not stand, saying: “Upon further analysis of now available information, my client must retract his earlier statement” [4]. The shift highlights mounting legal pressure on the influencer.
legal team seeks damage control
Advocate Gerald Roethof confirmed representing Rouand YT amid the escalating scandal [3]. While preparing a detailed public response scheduled for later on April 25, Roethof offered limited insight, noting only that his client desired “some peace and quiet” [3]. Legal experts suggest the priority is managing public perception ahead of judicial proceedings [4]. Although currently treated solely as a witness by the Public Prosecution Service, questions remain about potential liability stemming from prior court orders restricting his activities [6].
prior offenses resurface in investigation
This incident violates a previous court-imposed restriction placed on Rouand YT in March 2024, following convictions for making death threats against hospitality workers [6]. At that time, he received a 50-hour community service order and was banned for two years from conducting pranks likely to disrupt public order or coerce individuals [6]. Since the fatal shooting occurred on December 31, 2025, it fell within this probationary period [6]. Authorities are now considering imposing an additional 50-hour community sentence specifically for breaching the prank prohibition clause [1].
prosecutors probe chain of causation
While the Public Prosecution Service confirms Rouand YT is not considered a suspect in the shootings themselves, it continues investigating whether the prank call directly triggered the attack [1]. Forensic teams analyzed call logs, surveillance footage, and eyewitness accounts to establish timelines and motives [4]. The prosecution asserts the three Syrian teenagers—Mohammad Nor (16), Mohammed Al Mukrasi (18), and a 17-year-old survivor—were present at the wrong place and wrong time [4]. Efe Y., the alleged shooter suffering from schizophrenia and psychosis, reportedly reacted violently to perceived threats during the call [2].
case timeline intensifies public debate
On December 31, 2025, shortly before the gunfire erupted near the blue bridge in Piet Więdijkpark, West Amsterdam, Rouand YT conducted a paid prank call impersonating a criminal figure demanding money from Efe Y. [6]. Enraged, Y. issued a challenge to meet at the bridge location [4]. Within thirty minutes, shots were fired without warning at three cycling teens [4]. Two died instantly; one survived critically injured [4]. The tragic outcome has intensified national debate on digital accountability, mental health oversight, and the unforeseen consequences of online provocations presented as entertainment [GPT].