Next Digital Founder Jimmy Lai Faces Charges of Conspiracy to Collude with Foreign Forces

On Monday, November 2nd, the trial of Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, continued for the 100th day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court). On his eighth day testifying, the defense revisited the 2020 incident where Lai transferred his offshore company to Chan Tsz-wah.

Lai reiterated that his assistant, Mark Simon, was aware that Chan could not open a bank account, thus he wanted to assist. Judge Alex Lee pursued further, asking if Lai’s agreement to transfer the company was related to Chan’s personal business dealings with Lai. Lai denied any such connection, stating that he was trying to mitigate the violent activities of the radical protestors through Chan, offering his help without any unusual reasons and stressing there was no direct cause-and-effect relationship, merely describing it as a “simple favor.”

The case is overseen by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee. The prosecution is represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung, and Senior Prosecutor Crystal Chan. Representing Jimmy Lai are senior barrister Robert Pang, barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett, a barrister from New Zealand qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

14:45 Lai States that the “Most Powerful Weapon of the West” Refers to “Moral Authority”

The defense displayed an article Lai submitted to foreign media, published in Japan’s Nikkei on June 7, 2019, titled “Hong Kong extradition plan threatens liberty, rule of law and business.” They asked Lai if the article mentioned a desire for the government to listen to the citizens’ voices and did not mention sanctions. Lai agreed.

In an article published by the New York Times on July 1, 2019, titled “What the Hong Kong Protests Are Really About,” it mentioned “the most powerful weapon in the fight against the Chinese Communist Party: moral force.”

The defense inquired what Lai meant by “The most powerful weapon of the west.” Lai, in court, stated it was “moral authority.” The defense asked if Lai still believed that “moral authority” is the most powerful weapon, to which Lai agreed, maintaining the same view to this day.

Regarding Lai’s previous statements that “protesting from a moral high ground would garner sympathy, which is our strongest form of lobbying. Simply speaking with politicians is not effective; all Hong Kongers must stand on moral high ground,” the defense asked if this differed from what was described in the article as the “most powerful weapon of the west.” Lai replied, “It reflects the same belief.”

14:32 Lai Denies Conspiring with Chan Tsz-wah to Seek Foreign Sanctions

The defense questioned about a meeting in Taipei on January 11, 2020, between Lai, Chan Tsz-wah, and “Lam Chau” Finn Lau. They displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and his secretary “Chialing,” with the secretary replying, “Mr. Lau from London will land Taiwan around 1pm. Wayland and him may not able to make it to arrive in YMS house earlier than 4pm.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired if Lai’s secretary knew the surname of “Lam Chau” at the time. Lai agreed. Judge Lee further asked if Lai also knew at the time. Lai responded he did not know, emphasizing that he did not know Lau’s real name, which is why he asked him during the meeting, although Lau refused to answer. The defense asked if, from the implementation of the National Security Law until February 2021, Lai had conspired with Chan to request foreign entities or individuals to implement sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against Hong Kong SAR or the People’s Republic of China. Lai denied this, reaffirming that he only sought to quell violence by the valiant and had not conspired with Mark Simon or Finn Lau to request sanctions.

According to the prosecution’s opening statement, Lai conspired with Andy Li, Japanese House of Representatives member Shiori Yamao, and British financier Bill Browder to request foreign sanctions. Lai stated that he had not heard of the three individuals until their names were mentioned in court, hearing Browder’s name there and learning of Shiori Yamao’s from the court and Andy Li’s testimony.

12: 58 Lunch

12:15 Lai Confirms He Wrote a Tweet Praising Finn Lau, Unaware of Lau’s Connection to SWH

The defense presented a tweet from Lai’s account dated October 24, 2020, mentioning “Lam Chau” Finn Lau, reading: “I salute to @finnlau. At only 26, he has the wisdon knowing exactly when and what the right role to play. he inspired his peers in his former role and he’ll do it this time. the oustide world support is very important.”

The tweet included a link to an article from the Apple Daily English edition featuring an interview with Lau. Lai stated he wrote the tweet and then handed it to Simon Lee for editing, who added the tags for SWHK and Lau’s account. Lai emphasized that at that time, he was unaware of Lau’s association with SWHK and nobody had informed him of it.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired about Lai’s meeting with Lau in Taipei in January 2020, and whether the article, which referred to Lau leading SWHK, gave him any understanding of SWHK’s nature. Lai said he had not paid close attention to the content and probably read the Chinese version of the interview.

The defense then displayed the Chinese version of the interview, titled “Marcher narrowly escapes identity exposure, Lam Chau cheats death.” After reading it in court, Lai noted that the article did not mention Lau’s connection to SWHK. The defense enlarged a section of a newspaper ad with the text “Stand With Hong Kong until dawn,” and asked Lai if he thought it was a slogan or an organization. Lai said he believed it was a slogan and had not realized that SWHK was an organization when writing the tweet.

The defense further cited the tweet: “he has the wisdom knowing exactly when and what the right role to play. He inspired his peers in his former role and he’ll do it this time.” Lai explained that “role” referred to Lau’s role among the valiant, and his past role as a spiritual leader on online forums, with “he’ll do it this time” meaning Lai knew Lau would continue to advocate for international support for Hong Kong.

The defense noted that the article mentioned Lau’s arrest during a march on January 1, 2020. Lai said he was informed of Lau’s arrest by Chan Tsz-wah and that Lau fortunately was not recognized by the police.

11:27 Brief Pause

11:20 Lai’s Twitter Account Retweeted IPAC Post After First Arrest; Lai: No Recollection

The defense questioned about a tweet issued four days after Lai’s first arrest. At that time, Lai’s account retweeted an IPAC post stating, “Police couldn’t take into custody, Apple Daily’s inspirational courage,” and tagged “#IPAC advisor @benedictrogers,” along with a link to Apple Daily. Lai indicated he had no recollection of this tweet.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai knew that Ben Rogers was associated with IPAC. Lai said he was not aware. Lai also confirmed that when IPAC founder Luke de Pulford visited Hong Kong, they met for about half an hour, but IPAC was not mentioned during their meeting.

11:10 Lai Confirms Emphasis on International Support Before and After Implementation of the National Security Law

The defense inquired about a Twitter post from Lai’s account dated July 17, 2020, after the National Security Law was implemented. The tweet read: “#HongKong #SafeharbourAct and #PeopleFreedomandChoiceAct are good wherewithal to our resistance movement.” When asked who added the hashtags, Lai mentioned that they were added by Simon Lee, and he himself was unaware of the “Hong Kong Safe Harbour Act” and the “Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act”; the tweet was independently edited and posted by Lee. The defense mentioned that the tweet also linked to a Financial Times article titled “UK suspends Hong Kong extradition treaty ‘indefinitely’.” Lai noted he had not paid attention to the article.

The defense further referenced a retweet by Lai’s account in July 2020 of a post from the IPAC account, questioning why Lai would retweet this post. Lai indicated that this was managed by Simon Lee, and at that time, he did not pay attention to IPAC nor was he concerned with such organizations.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang mentioned that in June 2020, Lai hoped to prevent the passage of the National Security Law through international support. Lai confirmed this. The judge then asked if Lai still believed international support was important after the implementation of the National Security Law in July. Lai confirmed its importance but noted that it was no longer possible to prevent the law’s passage as it had already been implemented. He affirmed his focus was then on the international community’s reaction to the National Security Law.

When asked what Lai meant by “international support” at that time, he defined it as support for Hong Kong to ensure that the city’s freedoms were not as severely eroded as they could have been. Asked how he could ensure Hong Kong’s freedoms were not infringed, Lai said he could not guarantee this; he was merely hoping. He noted that everyone felt desperate at that time, and any support was considered good, though he did not have any specific supportive actions in mind.

11:00 Lai Indicates Consensus with “Apprentice” Simon Lee, Who Knew What Content He Wanted on Twitter

The defense asked if Simon Lee had obtained Lai’s consent before adding hashtags. Lai indicated that it was possible. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping further inquired how Lee obtained Lai’s consent, to which Lai speculated he might have seen the tweet. Toh pressed on how he saw the tweet, Lai then expressed confusion about the question, amending his response to perhaps not having seen the tweet, with Lee making decisions independently.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai had given instructions regarding the content on Twitter to Simon Lee. Lai responded that Lee knew what content he wanted to post as he had been his apprentice and worked under him for many years, sharing a mutual understanding.

Lee Wan-tang further inquired, if no instructions were given, how did Lee know he could post using Lai’s Twitter account? Lai reiterated that the account was set up and managed by Lee. Lee Wan-tang pursued what specific instructions were given at that time. Lai explained that he did not know how to track the account or retweet; initially, when setting up the account, Lee would ask Lai when he wanted to retweet something, but eventually, he stopped asking. The defense pointed out if Lee was employed to manage Lai’s Twitter at that time. Lai was uncertain whether Lee was employed by Apple Daily or worked freelance, noting it was not a concern of his.

The defense further asked if Lai had noticed the post after it was made. Lai indicated he might have glanced at it, but was not sure. The defense then asked if Lai had noticed the “IPAC” in the tweet at the time. Lai stated that he first became aware of “IPAC” in court and had not noticed it before.

10:45 Defense Questions Lai About His Twitter Account; Lai Believes Simon Lee Added the IPAC Tag

The defense continued questioning about Lai’s personal Twitter account, which became active in June 2020. Luke de Pulford, the founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), sent a Twitter link related to IPAC to Lai via WhatsApp on June 5, 2020, with the message, “Please RT.” Lai initially responded, “RT, what’s that mean?” to which de Pulford replied, “Retweet!”

The defense noted that Lai’s account ultimately did not retweet the IPAC post. In court, Lai mentioned that he was not familiar with IPAC at the time and did not read the content of the link. Lai explained that he was indifferent to IPAC and uninterested in it, stating that de Pulford would occasionally send him WhatsApp messages, hoping Apple Daily would publish his articles. Lai also stated he was not interested in de Pulford’s other work.

The defense showed a tweet from Lai’s account dated June 13, 2020, which included an article from The Wall Street Journal titled “Global Coalition of Legislators Faces Challenges Countering China.” The tweet was accompanied by the text, “It is encouraging to see leaders from different nationalities and ideological backgrounds join forces #ipacglobal to tackle the world’s most urgent geopolitical challenge #ccp.” When asked who added the “#ipacglobal” tag, Lai believed it was added by Simon Lee.

10:30 Lai Confirms Always Considering Chan as Part of the Conservative Faction Among Frontline Valiant Protesters

Earlier testimony revealed that on February 24, 2020, through Lai’s company “Dico,” a check was issued to refund expenses for a trip to Taiwan, amounting to about 80,000 dollars. Lai stated that this was the first time he learned of this transaction in court and did not recognize the signature on the check. It was later confirmed that the check was co-signed by Royston Chow Tat-kuen, the COO and then CFO of Next Digital Group, and Mark Simon. The defense then asked who paid for the travel expenses of Chan and Johnson Lam at that time? Lai confirmed that he paid, and Mark Simon handled it on his behalf.

Lai previously denied that the company “Lacock” was a reward for Chan’s request for foreign sanctions. Lai reiterated that he never provided any “reward” to Chan. The defense further asked if, during the 2019 social movements, because of Martin Lee, Lai considered Chan Tsz-wah to be part of the conservative faction among frontline valiant protesters, and if he still held the same view until their last meeting? Lai confirmed.

The defense also referenced the testimony of co-defendant Andy Li, who pleaded guilty. Li mentioned that during meetings with Chan in Fo Tan between July and August 2019, he learned that Chan controlled a valiant group, which had a place to store explosives involved in “scientific experiments,” and was implicated in the Tai Po shooting incident. He also mentioned that Chan had expressed intentions to form a government-in-exile and establish an army. However, Chan denied in his testimony, stating he never said he wanted to become the leader of a government-in-exile and that the Israeli military could train valiants. The defense asked if Chan ever mentioned the aforementioned matters during his interactions with Lai? Lai stated he never did.

10:10 Lai: Transferred Offshore Company to Chan Tsz-wah as He Could Not Open an Account; It Was a Simple Favor

The defense displayed a statement dated October 11, 2019, for Chan Tsz-wah, showing a deposit of $144,000 by check. Lai noted that this seemed to be his sponsorship for an exhibition organized by Chan. Further, the defense showed financial documents found on Lai’s secretary’s desk, including a line item labeled “Sponsorship and donations,” which listed “Chan Tsz Wah- sponsorship for exhibition $144k.” Lai mentioned that he had not paid attention to the content at the time and was only responsible for signing, indicating that the sponsorship details were provided by his assistant, Mark Simon, and likely prepared by Simon’s assistant.

The defense noted that the funds were transferred to Chan’s account on October 11, 2019, and according to Lai’s testimony, he met with Chan only on October 18, seven days after the transfer. The defense asked if Lai had been aware of the transfer to Chan at the time. Lai responded that when he met with Chan, he did not connect Chan to the transaction and believed that the meeting did not discuss the transfer.

Earlier in court, it was mentioned that Lai transferred an offshore company “LACOCK” under his name to Chan Tsz-wah on January 14, 2020. The defense asked why Lai transferred the company to Chan. Lai recalled, albeit vaguely, that Chan had expressed to Mark Simon that he was unable to open an account, and Simon wanted to help, so he transferred the company to Chan. As for the meeting between Chan and Lai on January 11, 2020, at Lai’s large estate in Yangmingshan, Taipei, Lai mentioned that he had already signed the transfer documents before the meeting.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang expressed concern about why Lai agreed to transfer the company to Chan. Was Chan’s personal business related to Lai? Lai responded no and that he was not concerned with the specifics of Chan’s business, just wanting to help him. Moreover, at that time, Lai was trying to calm the violent actions of valiant groups through Chan, so providing help was not unusual, and they often helped people. Judge Lee Wan-tang further questioned if Lai’s assistance to Chan in other respects was because he wanted Chan’s help in calming violence. Lai clarified that there wasn’t a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but they knew Chan and wanted to help him; it was just a simple favor.

10:02 Court Session Begins

The Witness