Two siblings and one of their workers have received prison sentences after duping two colleagues into visiting their ice cream business premises in Bradford and falsely accusing them of theft from the establishment.
Bradford Crown Court heard that the two victims, both of whom maintained their innocence regarding any theft, had been summoned to the Super Whippy location on Lister Lane in May 2023 under the pretence of receiving company instruction.
Upon their arrival, the pair were subjected to verbal abuse, physical assault, and accusations of stealing from the business.
Despite the complainants’ protestations, each was compelled to transfer funds from their personal bank accounts.
They were subsequently permitted to depart the premises and received warnings that the defendants were aware of their home addresses should they report the matter to law enforcement.
The brothers Yousaf Akhtar, aged 32 and residing at View Croft Road in Shipley, and Yasar Akhtar, aged 36 and living at Lister Lane near Bolton Road, each received forty-month prison terms after admitting two counts of blackmail.
Their colleague Haseeb Mahmood, aged 33 and from Hastings Terrace in Little Horton, entered the same guilty plea and was sentenced to thirty-six months imprisonment.
During police interviews, the three defendants offered no response to questioning.
In a prepared statement, Yasar Akhtar maintained that the accusations were fabricated.
However, on the scheduled trial date in June, all three admitted responsibility for the blackmail offences.
The court was informed that the injuries sustained by the victims were minor in nature.
Defence counsel for Yasar Akhtar explained that his client had stepped down from his directorial role at Super Whippy Limited in October 2024 and was now caring for his elderly parents who both experienced health difficulties.
Counsel for Yousaf Akhtar characterised the incident as thoroughly regrettable but noted its brief duration.
He explained that his client had participated in community activities and received positive character references.
The barrister emphasised that the pre-sentence documentation indicated this was an isolated occurrence for someone with no prior criminal record.
He described how his client had been operating under considerable strain from demanding work schedules, resulting in exhaustion.
The defendant expressed shame about failing to act appropriately, with the barrister suggesting the incident stemmed from a momentary loss of composure.
Presiding over the case, Judge Ahmed Nadim observed that the offence appeared to have involved a degree of forethought rather than representing an impulsive act.
Defence representation for Mahmood submitted that the scheme lacked sophisticated planning.
His barrister noted that his client had since acquired caring responsibilities for his spouse.
In delivering the custodial sentences, Judge Nadim commented that Mahmood had acted under direction from his long-standing employers and bore somewhat reduced culpability compared with his co-defendants.
A five-year restraining order was additionally imposed, prohibiting all three defendants from contacting the two victims.