Morocco-born influencer who ‘helped to rob’ A-list fashion designer of his £170,000 diamond-encrusted watch in Mayfair ‘had no idea’ attack was going to happen
Morocco-born influencer Abdel El Habchi has denied knowingly taking part in the alleged robbery of Romanian fashion designer Catalin Botezatu’s £170,000 diamond-encrusted Richard Mille watch outside Amazonico in Mayfair. He told a jury he did not know a robbery was planned and only realised something had been taken after co-defendant Younes Djoudi grabbed an item from the victim’s hand; the case concerns an alleged violent attack on a prominent fashion figure.
Prosecutors allege El Habchi, Ali Eldahouzze and Djoudi ambushed 59-year-old Botezatu on 28 January, with two men restraining him while a third used a knife to cut off his watch. El Habchi, 30, said Djoudi had threatened both him and Eldahouzze, including a threat to burn his children if he contacted police, and claimed Djoudi instigated an assault on him in Wandsworth prison. He said he has around one million Facebook followers, 350,000 Instagram followers and a TikTok account.
- Influencer denies knowing about alleged Mayfair watch robbery.
- Designer’s £170,000 watch was allegedly cut from his wrist.
- Defendant says co-accused threatened him and his family.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The prosecution’s case is that the alleged conduct was coordinated and cannot be dismissed as innocent presence: the men are said to have approached the victim together, restrained him, and enabled the removal of an exceptionally valuable watch with a knife. On that account, criminal responsibility may extend beyond the person who physically took the watch if others knowingly assisted the ambush, and the seriousness of an alleged violent public robbery warrants close scrutiny of any claimed lack of prior knowledge.
The case against
El Habchi’s defence is that he did not know a robbery was planned, did not anticipate violence or theft, and only understood that something had been taken when Djoudi acted. His account further suggests he may have been intimidated into silence by threats against his children and later assaulted in prison, which, if accepted, could support the view that fear rather than guilty knowledge shaped his conduct. The defence would argue that association with co-defendants and presence at the scene are not, by themselves, proof that he intended to participate in a robbery.