A YouTube content creator known as Rouand YT has found himself at the center of a tragedy after a live broadcast prank call segment reportedly led to two teenagers losing their lives in the Netherlands.
The format of Rouand’s broadcast was simple: viewers could make a donation and request a prank call to a person of their choosing, along with a fabricated scenario. For just €5, one viewer requested that Rouand call someone he described as an “unstable nephew.”
Following that request, Rouand contacted a man identified as Efe Y, posing as a criminal figure and demanding money, setting off a chain of events that would end in disaster.
After a heated exchange on the call, one of the parties suggested meeting at a nearby blue bridge close to Efe Y’s grandmother’s home. Rouand did not show up, but Efe Y did. Upon arriving and seeing a group of three teenagers on the bridge, Efe Y opened fire on them without any confrontation or exchange of words, leaving two fatally wounded and a third narrowly escaping the same fate.
Efe Y had reportedly been diagnosed with schizophrenia and illegally possessed a firea*m despite strict regulations in the Netherlands. The donor who made the request appeared to be aware of Efe Y’s instability, which raises serious questions about intent.
Following the incident, Rouand took to Instagram to deny any involvement, claiming he had not been broadcasting on New Year’s Day and was celebrating with family and friends. That denial quickly unraveled.
Discord notifications from his own server confirmed he had gone live that day, with one broadcast titled “New Year’s starts with prank calls and fun.”
His legal team later acknowledged the lie, stating: “Yesterday, partly due to uncertainty for him regarding the date, my client recorded a video as a first reaction in which he denies the prank. Upon further analysis of the information now known to my client, he must retract this denial. My client regrets the confusion that has arisen.”
Rouand has since been removed from YouTube. Legal proceedings are ongoing, and whether he and the donor will face consequences remains to be determined. The central question, both morally and legally, is what either party expected to come from calling a person they knew to be mentally unstable and confronting him with a fabricated threatening scenario. Whatever the legal outcome, it is difficult to argue that a call like this qualifies as a prank in any reasonable sense of the word.
