Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, is on trial for allegedly conspiring to collude with foreign forces and other offenses. On Thursday, his trial entered its 129th day at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. Lai testified for the 37th day as the prosecution continued its cross-examination for the 11th day.

During proceedings, the judge questioned Lai about his earlier testimony regarding his meeting with activist Finn Lau, known as “Lam Chau.” Lai had stated that he met with Lau because of his influence on the online forum LIHKG and his potential to help de-escalate violence within the militant faction of protesters. The judge asked whether Lai equated “LIHKGers” with the militant faction, to which Lai agreed, describing “LIHKGers” as young members of the militant faction who used the platform for communication.

When pressed on how Lau influenced LIHKG users, Lai said he was unaware of the specifics but believed Lau’s posts resonated with the group. He also stated he was unclear about Lau’s political stance and did not know whether Lau identified as a localist, reiterating only that Lau had influence over the militant faction.

The case is being heard by High Court-designated national security judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

16:21 Court Adjourns

16:00 Lai Denies Telling Chan Tsz-wah That He Would ‘Lead by Example’ in Calling for Sanctions

The prosecution cited Chan Tsz-wah’s testimony, in which Chan claimed that during the Taipei meeting, Lai outlined four steps for international lobbying:

1. First, foreign governments needed to be informed about what was happening in Hong Kong.
2. Next, they should be urged to condemn and pay attention to the situation.
3. Then, those messages should be brought back to Hong Kong, so that Hongkongers would know that ‘foreign governments have not abandoned or ignored them,’ helping maintain morale.
4. Finally, by building relationships with ‘behind-the-scenes people,’ they could influence China policy, push for sanctions, or even overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.

Under cross-examination, Lai denied making these statements, calling Chan’s claims fabricated.

The prosecution then pointed out that in July 2019, Lai had traveled to the U.S. to meet then-Vice President Mike Pence and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Additionally, he had launched Apple Daily’s English-language section, the “Live Chat” program, and his Twitter presence, all of which continued after the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL). The prosecution asked whether these actions aligned with the first step—informing foreign governments about Hong Kong’s situation. Lai responded that this did not mean he had discussed the matter with Chan Tsz-wah.

The prosecution further cited Chan’s testimony, claiming that Lai wanted the “Lam Chau team” to take over the international lobbying efforts. According to Chan, Finn Lau expressed his personal willingness to cooperate and agreed with the overall direction, but said the “Lam Chau team” needed to consult “rip,” later identified as Andy Li.

Lai denied this conversation ever took place, again claiming that Chan had fabricated the statement. The prosecution then asked whether Lai had agreed with Chan and Lau on pushing for foreign sanctions and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution referred to a June 16, 2020, meeting between Lai and Chan at the Next Digital headquarters and noted that Lai had already been aware of the impending NSL as early as May 21, 2020. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked whether Chan had said, “I think we should retreat now” during that meeting. Lai denied it.

The prosecution further asked whether Lai had responded by saying that the NSL was “all thunder, no rain” (雷聲大雨點小). Lai stated that this was his thinking at the time, calling it “wishful thinking,” because he believed Beijing would not want to destroy Hong Kong.

When asked why the NSL was brought up at the meeting, Lai responded that it was because the law was about to be implemented.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Chan had expressed concerns about the NSL. Lai replied that everyone at the time was concerned about the law, but he could not remember if Chan had explicitly expressed concerns.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked whether Lai’s statement that the NSL was “all thunder, no rain” was in response to Chan’s concerns about the law. Lai reiterated that he did not recall whether Chan had expressed concerns.

The prosecution cited Chan’s testimony, claiming that Lai had said he would ‘lead by example’ and continue calling for sanctions and attention through various media channels.

In court, Lai dismissed this claim as ‘crazy,’ insisting that he had always been cautious and that both he and his employees would stop discussing the topic if it came up in interviews. Lai asked, “How could I possibly lead by example in calling for sanctions?”

The prosecution then asked when Lai became cautious. Lai responded that he became cautious when the NSL was about to be implemented. He added that on June 16, 2020, he still felt relatively ‘relaxed,’ though not ‘intensely cautious.’

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then pointed out that in late May 2020, Lai had launched the “One Letter Per Person to Save Hong Kong” campaign, but less than a month later, he described the NSL as ‘all thunder, no rain.’

Judge Lee asked why Lai initiated the campaign. Lai responded that he wanted to do everything possible to save Hong Kong. Even though he believed the NSL might not be fully enforced, this did not mean he could relax, and he tried to remain optimistic and hopeful.

Judge Lee then asked, “So you were hoping for the best while preparing for the worst?”

Lai confirmed this.

15:36 Lai Denies Giving Instructions During Taipei Meeting with Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau

The prosecution presented a January 5, 2020, WhatsApp message from Mark Simon, sent six days before Lai’s meeting with Finn Lau in Taipei. The message, sent to a group chat that included Lai and Martin Lee, read:

“Good news in that our friend Wayland has been able to sync up the folks who did the international ads with Sam Chu, so that’s one less competing set of voices in DC (That was not an easy task).”

The prosecution asked whether, during his Taipei meeting, Lai mentioned that Chan Tsz-wah had coordinated international advertisement campaign members with Samuel Chu, founder of the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC). Lai responded no, stating that he did not believe Lau was involved in this matter, and that no one brought it up during the meeting.

The prosecution suggested that Lai did not inquire about this because Chan had already told him about it in December 2019. Lai responded that he did not remember. The prosecution then asked whether Chan had mentioned “Andy” (Lee Yu-hin) to Lai. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution further cited Chan’s testimony, stating that Lai had told him:

“There’s no need to waste resources on this. The key is to connect with ‘behind-the-scenes’ people, not just those on the surface, like Rick Scott, Ted Cruz, and Todd Young—these are connections the old pan-democrats already have. What we need are political consultants or those involved in national policy planning.”

Lai denied ever saying this, adding that he would not use terms like “behind-the-scenes people.”

The prosecution then referenced Chan’s testimony, claiming that Lai had said, “In the long run, we should seek international recognition so that they will impose embargoes, sanctions, and put pressure on governments.” Lai denied making this statement.

However, when asked whether he agreed that applying pressure included embargoes and sanctions, Lai agreed.

The prosecution further cited Chan’s testimony, in which Lai allegedly said, “We need to unite different factions and combine them with civilian forces to achieve ‘China’s internal collapse’ (支爆).” Lai responded that “支爆” (China’s internal collapse) was a term introduced by Finn Lau, and he never made the statement attributed to him.

As for another statement in Chan’s testimony, which claimed that Lai said, “Based on historical experience, China will soon face internal collapse because the government spends massive resources on monitoring its people”, Lai denied making this statement, clarifying that he only said that the Chinese government spends vast resources on surveillance, and that the term “支爆” was introduced by Finn Lau.

The prosecution then referenced an opinion article written by Lai, titled “There’s Hope for Freedom, Even in China”, published in The Washington Post on September 30, 2019. The article stated:

“If China’s economy collapses, so will the legitimacy of its regime.”

The prosecution questioned whether this indicated that Lai was familiar with the concept of “China’s internal collapse”. Lai responded that his statement about economic collapse was merely speculation.

The prosecution concluded by asserting that Lai’s meeting in Taipei was meant to provide instructions on how to conduct international lobbying. Lai denied this.

15:22 Lai States His Sole Purpose in Meeting Finn Lau Was to Lobby for Organizing a Leadership Team for the Valiant Faction

Regarding Lai’s meeting with Finn Lau in Taipei in January 2020, the prosecution asserted that Lai arranged the meeting through Mark Simon and asked whether Simon had arranged it on Lai’s behalf. Lai replied, “Of course.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had inquired where Lau had traveled from for the meeting. Lai asked what they meant, prompting Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping to clarify whether Lai knew which country Lau had come from. Lai responded that he had arranged Lau’s flight tickets and knew that Lau was coming from the UK, where he lived and worked.

The prosecution then asked who informed Lai that Lau worked in the UK. Lai replied that he had always known Lau was a surveyor living in the UK, possibly from Chan Tsz-wah or someone else. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai already knew in January 2020 that Lau was a surveyor. Lai agreed, stating that during their meeting, he asked Lau about his work, and Lau replied that his job was similar to that of Leung Chun-ying.

The prosecution asked whether Lai inquired if Lau had participated in the anti-extradition movement. Lai stated that he did not ask, but he assumed Lau was involved, adding that Lau was influential within the valiant faction and on LIHKG. When asked whether Lai inquired about what Lau had done during the movement, Lai stated that he did not, explaining that he assumed Lau was a spiritual leader, and Lau himself did not mention his past activities.

The prosecution suggested that Lai did not ask because Chan Tsz-wah had already informed him about Lau’s background, including his participation in the election monitoring delegation. Lai denied this, adding that he was unaware of Lau’s involvement in the “G20 crowdfunding campaign”, though he had heard that the crowdfunding effort was successful.

The prosecution asked whether Lai and Lau had discussed Luke de Pulford’s article. Lai stated that he did not bring it up again during their meeting.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s sole purpose in meeting Lau was to lobby for the organization of a leadership team for the valiant faction. Lai agreed, adding that during the meeting, Lau also spoke about the district elections and “China’s internal collapse.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai specifically instructed Lau on what to do. Lai replied that he did not, only mentioning that it was a good opportunity for Lau to use his influence to help organize a leadership team for the valiant faction.

The prosecution asked whether the most concrete step Lai suggested was how to form a leadership team. Lai stated that even he did not know exactly how to do it, but he assumed Lau would have a better understanding. He added that Lau’s reaction during their meeting made him feel that Lau agreed and wanted to accomplish the goal. Lai further stated that after the meeting, he did not follow up on the leadership team’s progress and did not ask Chan Tsz-wah for updates, reiterating that he had only made a suggestion.

The prosecution asked whether Lai was concerned about this matter at the time. Lai agreed. The prosecution then challenged why Lai did not follow up with Lau or Chan Tsz-wah. Lai responded that it was unnecessary because both were responsible adults.

15:12 Lai Says He Forwarded Luke de Pulford’s Open Letter Hoping Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau Would Understand That Violence Undermines International Support

The prosecution presented evidence that on January 8, 2020, Lai sent Chan Tsz-wah an article titled “[Online Forum] Advice from a Friend (Luke de Pulford)”, describing it as “a great open letter by Luke de Pulford!” Chan responded, “I read it yesterday, which helps me persuade the rest of the stubborn leaders.”

The article outlined five key points:

1. Your campaigning isn’t directed at the international community.
2. Leaderlessness is great, but creates a problem of representation.
3. The international community needs to know what you want.
4. Don’t give up.
5. Think big in everything you do, especially those involved in violence.

Regarding Point 4, the article stated:
“There’s a lot of talk in HK of the ‘pointlessness’ of international lobbying… It’s not pointless. It’s just hard.”

Lai agreed that this statement was related to international lobbying.

For Point 5, which stated: “Think big in everything you do, especially those involved in violence,” the prosecution asked whether Lai wanted Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau to pay attention to this point. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then cited further details from Point 5, which stated:
“Wherever you stand on the debate around violent resistance, one thing is unquestionably true: it really hurts you internationally… We have had politicians distance themselves from you.”

The prosecution argued that this point was about how to make international lobbying more effective. Lai responded that it was about how violence could damage international support, which is why he instructed Chan Tsz-wah to forward it to Finn Lau, urging them not to let violence undermine international support.

The prosecution asserted that the article was about international lobbying. Lai responded that he wanted them to read specifically about how violence affects international support.

The prosecution then argued that by forwarding the article to Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau, Lai intended for them to participate in international lobbying. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution further asked whether Lai only wanted them to read Point 5. Lai responded that it was not just Point 5, but that Chan clearly understood that violence would harm international support. He pointed out that Chan had replied, “This helps me persuade the rest of the stubborn leaders,” showing that Chan understood the purpose of Lai forwarding the article.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had explicitly told them to read only Point 5. Lai agreed that he had not specified this.

14:57 Short Recess

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios had issues with her screen and had to take a brief recess

14:33 Prosecution Questions Lai Over Inconsistencies in Testimony Regarding District Election Monitoring Delegation

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about the November 2019 visit of Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford to Hong Kong as part of a district election monitoring delegation. They cited Lai’s earlier testimony during defense examination, in which he stated that during his meeting with Finn Lau in Taipei, they may have discussed the district elections but he was unaware of the election monitoring delegation. When the defense asked if he had met Pulford and Lord Alton in Hong Kong around the same time, Lai agreed but claimed that they had only discussed their views on Hong Kong over dinner and suggested that Mark Simon had arranged the meeting.

The prosecution asked if Lai remembered this testimony. Lai responded that he did not remember. The prosecution pressed further, asking whether his earlier claim that he was unaware of Pulford and Lord Alton’s visit for election monitoring was inaccurate. Lai requested to review his conversation with Benedict Rogers.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then referenced Rogers’ message, in which Rogers explicitly stated that Lord Alton was part of a group of international parliamentarians coming to Hong Kong to observe the elections and that one of them had inquired about safety concerns. In response, Lai had replied, “There’s no security problem.”

Judge Lee then asked whether this suggested Lai was aware that foreign individuals were coming to Hong Kong. Lai denied this, saying that he had only focused on the security concerns and had overlooked the part mentioning international parliamentarians. He further stated that he was not lying but had simply forgotten.

The prosecution then asked if Lai’s earlier testimony under defense examination was inaccurate. Lai agreed that it was inaccurate.

Judge Lee then asked, based on this revised statement, whether Lai had discussed the election monitoring delegation during his meeting with Finn Lau in Taipei. Lai stated that he had not, though he admitted that they may have lightly touched on the topic of the district elections, but did not discuss it in detail.

12:38 Lai States He Did Not Accompany Lord Alton in Observing District Elections, Only Had a Meal with Him

The prosecution presented a January 7, 2020, conversation between Lai and his assistant Mark Simon, in which Simon forwarded a message he had sent to Luke de Pulford, founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC):

“Luke, the guy who came with Lord Alton, submitted a piece for Apple and they published it.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had met Pulford multiple times. Lai replied that he had met him only once, when Pulford visited Hong Kong with Lord Alton, and they had a meal together at a hotel. However, he could not recall the exact date.

The prosecution then asked whether this meeting took place in November 2019, when Lord Alton and Pulford visited Hong Kong as part of an election monitoring delegation for the District Council elections. Lai responded that it was very likely.

The prosecution asked whether Pulford was Lord Alton’s assistant. Lai said he assumed so, but there was no formal introduction between them.

The prosecution then displayed a November 14, 2019, conversation between Lai and Benedict Rogers, founder of the human rights group Hong Kong Watch. Rogers wrote:

“Dear Jimmy, very confidentially, Lord Alton is coming to HK from 23-26 November as part of a group to monitor district council elections. If he gets in, he would like to meet you and Cardinal Zen, Martin, and others.”

Lai responded:

“OK, let me know the date and I’ll set up a dinner with them. Cheers, Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked why Rogers stated “very confidentially”. Lai replied, “You should ask him,” adding that he considered the matter too trivial.

The prosecution then asked whether “Martin” referred to Martin Lee Chu-ming. Lai agreed but said he did not know who the “others” referred to in the message.

The prosecution asked whether Lai met with only Lord Alton and Pulford. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then presented another message from November 16, 2019, in which Rogers asked Lai:

“A quick question. As I mentioned, a group of international parliamentarians are planning to come to observe the elections, including Lord Alton. But one of them has asked about security. What is your view? Is it a good idea, or is it too risky in terms of safety?”

Lai responded:

“There’s no security problem. The situation is not as bad as that. Don’t worry. Cheers, Jimmy.”

The next day, Rogers sent Lai a document titled “Independent Election Observation Mission for the 2019 Hong Kong District Council Elections.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had accompanied Lord Alton in observing the District Council elections. Lai denied this, stating that he only had dinner with Lord Alton and Pulford.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Martin Lee and Cardinal Joseph Zen were also present at the dinner. Lai replied no, adding that he did not read the document Rogers had sent him.

The prosecution challenged Lai, noting that the document was related to Lord Alton and Pulford’s participation in the election monitoring delegation. They asked whether he was not interested in this matter. Lai confirmed that he was not interested.

The prosecution further asked whether Lai wanted more information about their visit. Lai replied that Rogers’ WhatsApp messages had already provided sufficient details and reiterated that he had not read the document.

12:25 Lai Denies Seeking Finn Lau’s Participation in International Lobbying During Their Meeting

Regarding Lai’s October 24, 2020, Twitter post saluting Finn Lau, the prosecution pointed out that the tweet included an Apple Daily report, which stated:

“Finn Lau, a 26-year-old young professional who led ‘Stand with Hong Kong’, a lobbyist group…”

The prosecution asked whether the “lobbyist group” mentioned in Apple Daily referred to efforts to gain international support. Lai agreed. The prosecution further inquired whether “international support” included advocating for sanctions and hostile actions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials. Lai responded that he did not know. The prosecution also noted that Apple Daily reports from 2019 to 2020 did not mention any connection between Lau and the valiant protest faction. Lai agreed.

The prosecution continued, stating that the reports focused on Lau’s international efforts, including calls for international support. Lai explained that at the time, Lau had just joined an international organization, and therefore, his past roles did not need to be mentioned.

Referring to the Apple Daily article “Arrested During Protest, Nearly Exposed His Identity – Lam Chau Ba Escapes Death”, which stated:

“‘I Want Lam Chau’—a name that emerged from LIHKG and indirectly influenced the course of the anti-extradition movement. His real identity was finally revealed earlier this month…”

The prosecution asked whether the article did not mention Lau’s connection to the valiant protest faction. Lai responded that he believed the valiant faction used LIHKG for communication, and Lau had risen to prominence on LIHKG as their spiritual leader.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked whether the report mentioned Lau as a “spiritual leader”. Lai agreed that it did not, but reiterated that Lau indirectly influenced the morale of the anti-extradition movement, which he had learned from various media sources.

The prosecution then questioned whether, when Lai met Lau in Taipei, he was aware that Lau had no ties to the valiant faction. Lai disagreed. The prosecution further asserted that Lai actually wanted Lau to participate in international lobbying. Lai denied this.

10:50 Prosecution Cites Apple Daily Reports on Finn Lau; Lai States He Did Not Read All of Them

The prosecution presented an Apple Daily article from August 19, 2019, under the “Li Bak Fong – Eavesdropping” column, titled “Lam Chau x G20 Team Crowdfunds HK$14 Million to Advertise in 13 Countries to Expose Police Brutality”. Lai responded that “Li Bak Fong” was a gossip news column written under a pen name, and he had not read the report, as he rarely followed gossip news columns.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had heard about Finn Lau from his colleagues. Lai agreed. The prosecution then inquired whether his colleagues had told him Lau was involved in crowdfunding campaigns. Lai stated that they had not.

As for another “Li Bak Fong” report titled “Lam Chau Joins the International Alliance in Resistance”, Lai said he may have seen it at the time. The prosecution pointed out that the article mentioned: “Lam Chau launched one wave of action after another, such as crowdfunding for global advertisements, successfully elevating issues such as police brutality and Beijing’s violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration to an international level. Recently, Lam Chau had even greater news—the Lam Chau team has formally joined an alliance of international lawmakers.” Lai stated that he was unaware of this part at the time.

The prosecution then presented a tweet posted by Lai on October 24, 2020, which read:

“I salute to @finnlau. At only 26, 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. The outside world support is very important.”

The prosecution asked why Lai saluted Finn Lau. Lai replied that global support was important and that he believed Lau was wise, had joined an international alliance, and knew when to play the right role.

The prosecution also displayed an Apple Daily article from the same day titled “Arrested During Protest, Nearly Exposed His Identity – Lam Chau Escapes Death”. The article stated:

“‘I Want to Burn With You’—a name that emerged from LIHKG and indirectly influenced the course of the anti-extradition movement. His real identity was finally revealed earlier this month: he is a 26-year-old, Hong Kong-born surveyor named Finn Lau. Known online as ‘Lam Chau,’ he spoke with Apple Daily in a video interview about the origins of the Lam Chau strategy and his life-or-death experiences over the past year.”

Lai confirmed that he only learned about Lau’s background after reading this report.

The prosecution then asked about another detail in the article, which mentioned: “The Lam Chau team’s Japanese-language publicity campaign, done in collaboration with Freedom Hong Kong, was recommended for an advertising award.” Lai stated that he had not read this detail at the time.

The prosecution further pointed out a photo in the article, which had a caption stating:

“Lam Chau is a key figure in the international front, working discreetly on lobbying efforts. He recently engaged in discussions and closed-door meetings with members of the European Parliament.”

The prosecution noted that Lau was wearing a T-shirt similar to the one that Lai and U.S. Senator Rick Scott held during their 2019 meeting in the U.S.. Lai admitted that the shirts were similar but not identical.

The prosecution then stated that the report did not mention Lau’s connection to the valiant protest faction. Lai responded, “Everyone knows he is the spiritual leader of the valiant faction.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai agreed that the article did not explicitly link Lau to the valiant protest faction. Lai agreed, acknowledging that the article mainly focused on Lau’s international activities.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai was aware of Lau’s involvement in international publicity efforts when he wrote his tweet saluting Lau. Lai responded that he learned about it after reading the article.

Judge Lee further inquired whether, when Lai met Lau in January 2020, he was aware of Lau’s involvement in international publicity campaigns. Lai replied that he did not remember, but it might have been mentioned.

Judge Toh then asked about Lai’s tweet, which referenced Lau’s past and future roles, questioning whether Lai’s mention of Lau’s “previous role” referred to his work in the international front. Lai denied this, clarifying that he was referring to Lau’s role as the spiritual leader of the valiant protest faction.

10:37 Lai States Finn Lau Had Influence Over ‘LIHKGers’; Judge Questions Definition of ‘LIHKGers’

The prosecution continued citing Lai’s testimony, stating that Finn Lau had many followers on LIHKG and was influential on the platform. Lai confirmed that Lau had influence over both ‘LIHKGers’ and the valiant protest faction.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what “LIHKGers” referred to. The court interpreter explained it as “LIHKGers”. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked if Lai first learned about Finn Lau through the media. Lai replied that Lau was a ‘spiritual leader’ of LIHKG. 

The defense added that LIHKG is a social media platform. Judge D’Almada Remedios asked whether one needed to sign up to use it. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang explained that it is an online platform where people share opinions. Judge Toh then asked, “So, it’s like Instagram?” Judge Lee then asked whether all LIHKG users were valiant protesters. Lai responded no, but stated, “But I think they occupied a dominant position there.”

Judge Lee then asked whether Lai equated ‘LIHKGers’ with the valiant protest faction. Lai agreed that LIHKG users who were part of the valiant faction were ‘LIHKGers’. Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked, “So the ‘仔’ in ‘LIHKGers’ refers to the valiant protesters?” The prosecution followed up, asking what Lai meant by ‘LIHKGers’. Lai explained that ‘LIHKGers’ referred to young valiant protesters who used LIHKG to communicate. He reiterated that he never personally used LIHKG, but Finn Lau was frequently discussed in the media and even among the pan-democratic camp.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had read Apple Daily reports about Finn Lau. Lai agreed, but said that at the time, he was unaware of Lau’s background—he only knew that Lau was influential and that young people listened to him. The prosecution pressed for details on what kind of influence Lau had. Lai replied that he did not know the specifics, suggesting that it could have been his posts on LIHKG that resonated with people, but he personally had not read them.

Judge Lee then asked whether Lai knew Finn Lau’s political stance. Lai responded that he did not know, nor did he know whether Lau identified as a localist. He reiterated that his only impression of Lau was that he had influence over the valiant protest faction.

10:18 Lai Confirms Hoping Finn Lau Would Use His Influence to Organize a Leadership Group; Judge Questions Any Discrepancies with Previous Testimony

Regarding Lai’s relationship with “Lam Chau” Finn Lau, Lai stated under defense examination that he did not know what Lam Chau was doing but emphasized that “the only purpose was to seek his assistance in forming a leadership organization.” Lai added that he met with Chan Tsz-wah and Finn Lau in Taipei on January 11, 2020, primarily to discuss organizing leaders from the valiant protest faction. Lai said that other topics were also discussed that day, but they were unimportant and therefore he could not recall them.

The prosecution asked Lai what else he and Lau discussed that day. Lai responded that Lau mentioned “支爆” (short for “China’s internal collapse”). He added that the conversation was not long and mainly focused on organizing valiant protest leaders. When asked what else he had mentioned, Lai said that in response to Lau’s “支爆” remarks, he noted that China spends a lot of money to control its people, which in turn depletes market resources. The prosecution asked if Lai had stated that “China spends a lot of money monitoring its citizens”, to which Lai replied yes, explaining that monitoring equates to control.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had always wanted Lau to organize valiant protest leaders. Lai replied not always, stating that the idea of forming a leadership group only came to him after the Polytechnic University siege.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s testimonies from Days 98 and 99 of the trial, noting that at first, Lai stated, “I wanted him (Lau) to organize a leadership team among the valiant faction.” However, he later said, “I did not want him (Lau) to become the leader of the valiant faction, but rather to influence the valiant faction—by organizing a leadership group to de-escalate violence and make actions more organized.” The prosecution questioned whether these were two different versions of events. Lai responded that they were not different versions, reiterating that he had always hoped Lau would use his influence to form a leadership group.

The prosecution asked if this was Lai’s final answer. Lai responded, “Not the final answer,” but restated that he wanted Lau to use his strong influence to help organize leadership among the valiant faction.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked, “So Lai did not want Lau to be the leader?” Lai agreed, explaining that since Lau was clearly unable to return to Hong Kong, he could not personally form a leadership group. The only way was through his influence in rallying the valiant protest leaders.

Toh pointed out that Lai’s initial testimony was, “I wanted him (Lau) to organize a leadership group among the valiant faction,” and questioned whether that was inaccurate. Lai responded that Lau was in the UK at the time and could only exert influence remotely. Toh pressed further, asking if Lai’s first testimony was inaccurate. Lai repeated that he wanted Lau to use his influence.

Toh then challenged him, pointing out that his first testimony did not mention “influence,” whereas the second one did, suggesting that the second version was more accurate since Lai knew Lau was in the UK and could not physically organize a leadership group. Lai replied, “I believe Lau has influence. If that’s how you understand it, I accept it. OK, OK, OK. Let’s not waste more time on this. OK, thank you!”

Toh clarified that she only wanted to be sure—so did Lai agree that the first testimony was inaccurate and the second one more accurate? Lai agreed, stating “OK,” and added, “Not accurate in the sense of expression.”

10:05 Prosecution Continues Questioning Lai on His Understanding of the Primary Election

The prosecution stated that the primary election was held from July 11 to 12, 2020. Evidence shows that on July 12, Chan Tsz-wah sent a message to Jimmy Lai, saying, “Hi Jimmy, thanks for everything on the primary election. It’s remarkable on our HK history. Wayland.” Lai replied the next day, saying, “It’s a miracle!”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai was still concerned about the primary election as of July 2020. Lai responded, “You can say that,” but clarified that the topic was brought up by Chan Tsz-wah, and he was merely responding out of politeness. He added, “And whether that means concern or not, it’s up to you,” further stating that he did not remember when the primary election took place.

The prosecution presented three tweets posted on Lai’s Twitter account between July 12 and 13, all featuring reports from Apple Daily along with accompanying photos. The headlines of these reports were:

1. “Elderly wait three hours to vote for 35+; voters pledge to ‘take back control'”
2. “Undeterred by the national security law, LegCo 35+ clears first hurdle; 610,000 Hongkongers vote in resistance”
3. “Traditional pan-democrats go all-in to defend their seats; localist newcomers vow to break into the mainstream”

In one of these tweets, which included the report “Elderly wait three hours to vote for 35+; voters pledge to ‘take back control'”, an additional message was posted:
“More than 420,000 voted. We #HKers are determined to win 35+ in September LegCo election. We will take back the control of our lives. #FightforFreedom #StandWithHongKong.”

Lai stated that he likely wrote these tweets himself and took the accompanying photos, which he then sent to his “apprentice,” Simon Lee, for posting. When the prosecution asked how he had sent them to Simon Lee, Lai said he could not recall whether it was through Signal or WhatsApp, but he was certain it was not through a phone call.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked whether the hashtags were added by Simon Lee, to which Lai agreed.

10:02 Court in Session

The Witness