Key Takeaways
- Oluwatobiloba Akinrinola (19) and Richile Vangu (20) were sentenced to a combined 18 years in prison for a robbery‑blackmail scheme that involved assault, humiliation, and filming victims for TikTok.
- The attack took place at a party in North Kilworth, Leicestershire on 21 November 2025, where at least eight men were threatened with a large “zombie‑style” knife, robbed of designer items, and forced to perform degrading acts.
- Vangu, who styled himself “Trixta”, planned the offence, recruited Akinrinola, and later posted the incriminating videos on TikTok, which became central evidence at trial.
- Judge Steven Evans described the conduct as torture, noted Vangu’s “complete absence of empathy”, and deemed Akinrinola “subservient” yet essential to the crimes.
- Akinrinola’s parents maintained he was innocent, arguing the conviction relied on circumstantial evidence and that no stolen goods or money were linked to him; the court rejected this claim.
- Two other men arrested in connection with the incident were acquitted of all charges.
- The case highlights how social‑media platforms can be used to disseminate evidence of violent crime and underscores the UK courts’ willingness to impose lengthy sentences for organised humiliation‑based robberies.
Case Overview and Sentencing
On Monday, Leicester Crown Court handed down sentences that totalled 18 years of imprisonment for two young men involved in a pre‑meditated robbery and blackmail plot. Nineteen‑year‑old Nigerian student Oluwatobiloba Akinrinola, residing at Slippers Place, London, received a seven‑year custodial term. His co‑defendant, 20‑year‑old Richile Vangu, was sentenced to 11 years in prison plus an additional three‑year extended licence period. The judge emphasized the gravity of the offences, noting that the pair’s actions caused physical injury, psychological trauma, and public humiliation of multiple victims. The sentences reflect both the individual culpability of each defendant and the collaborative nature of the criminal enterprise they orchestrated.
Details of the Robbery and Blackmail Plot
Prosecutors presented evidence that the pair had meticulously planned an attack on partygoers attending a gathering in North Kilworth, Leicestershire, on 21 November 2025. Vangu, who introduced himself as “Trixta”, allegedly recruited Akinrinola to assist in the scheme. According to the court, Vangu demanded that each victim transfer £1,000 under threat of being stabbed with a large knife. When victims resisted or delayed payment, the defendants escalated their aggression, seizing designer clothing, phones, and other valuables. The robbery was not a spontaneous act but a coordinated effort to extort money while inflicting fear and degradation on those present.
Victim Experiences and Acts of Humiliation
During the incident, at least eight men were corralled into a bedroom and threatened with a “zombie‑style” knife. Beyond the theft, the defendants subjected victims to a series of humiliating and physically painful acts. Akinrinola forced several individuals to perform strenuous exercises such as star jumps and high knees before repeatedly punching them. Vangu reportedly whipped victims with a belt, shot them with a BB gun, waxed their faces, and threatened to cut off their dreadlocks if they failed to meet his monetary demands. The judge characterised these actions as torture, highlighting the deliberate intent to degrade and terrify the victims while capturing the abuse on camera for later distribution.
Evidence Presentation: TikTok Videos and Forensic Details
Crucial to the prosecution’s case was the footage that Vangu uploaded to TikTok following the assault. The videos showed the defendants brandishing knives, directing victims to dance, and recording the ensuing abuse. Investigators retrieved the clips from Vangu’s account, and they were played in court as direct evidence of the defendants’ participation and intent. Forensic examination of the victims’ phones and bank accounts corroborated the claims of forced money transfers, while CCTV from the venue placed both defendants at the scene, contradicting the defence’s assertion that Akinrinola was merely a bystander. The combination of digital evidence, witness testimony, and physical proof formed a robust foundation for the convictions.
Judicial Reasoning and Sentencing Rationale
Judge Steven Evans delivered a stern condemnation of the defendants’ conduct, describing the offences as “torture” and emphasizing Vangu’s “complete absence of empathy” toward the victims. He found that Vangu had been the principal planner, recruiting Akinrinola and directing the violent actions. Although the judge characterised Akinrinola as “subservient” to Vangu, he concluded that the younger defendant played an essential role in carrying out the robbery, blackmail, and assaults, thereby warranting a substantial custodial sentence. The extended licence period for Vangu reflects the court’s assessment of his ongoing risk to the public, particularly given the premeditated and cruel nature of his actions.
Defense Narrative and Parents’ Appeal
Akinrinola’s parents, Aderinkola and Olayinka Akinrinola, issued a statement prior to sentencing insisting that their son was wrongfully convicted. They argued that the prosecution’s case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and his mere association with Vangu, whom he had only met after enrolling at Leicester University in September 2025 claimed that Akinrinola attended the party but did not participate in the robbery, never benefited from any proceeds, and was not identified by several victims as an assailant. They further noted that no stolen items were recovered from his residence, no money transfers were traced to his accounts, and CCTV footage only showed his arrival at the venue, not his presence during the alleged attacks. Despite these assertions, the jury and judge found the collective evidence sufficient to uphold the convictions.
Outcome for Co‑defendants and Broader Implications
Two other men arrested in connection with the incident—Benjamin Osadolor, 19, of Northampton, and Ayomide Ibraheem, 19, of London—were tried alongside the principal defendants but were acquitted of all charges. Their acquittals underscore the prosecution’s reliance on specific evidence linking Vangu and Akinrinola to the violent acts, while highlighting the limits of guilt‑by‑association arguments in criminal proceedings. The case has attracted attention for its disturbing use of social media as a trophy‑sharing platform, prompting discussions about the responsibilities of online services to monitor and remove content that evidences serious crime. Ultimately, the lengthy sentences serve as a deterrent, signalling that organised humiliation‑based robberies will be met with severe judicial consequences in the United Kingdom.
