Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with conspiring to collude with foreign forces and other offenses, appeared in West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court on Friday for the 130th day of his trial. The court is temporarily serving as the High Court. Lai testified for the 38th day as the prosecution continued its cross-examination for the 12th day, focusing on his communications with Chan Tsz-wah before the enactment of the National Security Law.

Prosecutors presented a message from Chan to Lai in May 2020, in which Chan said the situation had become irreversible and expressed concerns about Lai and his family’s safety. Lai responded, telling Chan not to worry and stating that anyone who joined the struggle must be prepared to fight to the end. “We may not win, but we must persist,” Lai wrote.

Under cross-examination, Lai denied that he was urging Chan to continue resisting, saying his words were meant to console him. Prosecutors asked whether Lai had advised Chan not to violate the National Security Law. Lai said he had not, arguing that everyone was already aware of the law’s impending implementation and that Chan, as an adult, would know how to proceed.

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 (Special Duties) Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, 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 also qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

16:16 Court Adjourns

16:00 De Pulford Sent Lai Documents on IPAC Membership Numbers, Lai Claimed He Was Uninterested and Did Not Read Them

The prosecution presented evidence showing that on June 11, 2020, Luke de Pulford sent Lai two documents, both titled: “The membership of the IPAC has ballooned to over 100 legislators from 13 countries, in under a week.” Lai responded with, “Thank you.”

Lai stated that he did not read these documents. The prosecution argued that even without opening the files, Lai could have understood the scale of IPAC from the title alone. Lai replied that he was not interested.

The prosecution then presented a Twitter link sent by de Pulford to Lai on July 7, 2020, which read:

“BREAKING @MPIainDS calls for Carrie Lam to be sanctioned under the UK’s new Magnitsky sanctions regime. @DominicRaab doesn’t rule it out.”

The tweet was accompanied by a video clip from a parliamentary session. The prosecution asked whether the video was related to Iain Duncan Smith’s call to sanction Carrie Lam. Lai stated that he had not watched the video.

The messages also showed that after sending the Twitter link, de Pulford wrote: “Organized for this to happen today. Actually not impossible now. Hope you’re okay.” Lai responded: “Luke, Yes. I’m ok for now. Cheers. Jimmy” and “Yes, not impossible now.”

The prosecution asked if Lai’s phrase “not impossible now” referred to the possibility of Carrie Lam being sanctioned. Lai claimed he did not know, adding, “Maybe I was mistaken,” explaining that he was referring to his own situation.

Judge Esther Toh pointed out that Lai had explicitly said, “Yes, not impossible now.” Lai reiterated that he had made a mistake.

The prosecution questioned how Lai could say, “not impossible now,” if he had not watched the video. Lai explained that he thought de Pulford was asking whether his own situation was “impossible,” so he had replied that he was fine and added, “not impossible now.”

When asked what exactly was “not impossible,” according to his interpretation, Lai stated that he was referring to his own personal situation. The prosecution argued that Lai must have watched the video, given his response, but Lai disagreed.

The prosecution then asked whether de Pulford had been advocating for sanctions against Hong Kong officials after the enactment of the National Security Law. Lai claimed he was unaware.

When asked whether de Pulford was asking for Lai’s agreement or support, Lai responded, “I don’t know, how could I say whether I agree or not?” The prosecution then questioned whether Lai was unaware that de Pulford was actively lobbying for sanctions against Hong Kong officials. Lai maintained that he did not know.

15:15 Prosecution Accuses Lai of Lying Three Times About Not Knowing IPAC; Lai: “Why Would I Lie? Knowing IPAC Isn’t a Crime”

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Luke de Pulford on June 13, 2020, in which de Pulford said, “Thank you for tweeting about IPAC.” Lai responded, “You’re welcome.”

The prosecution then displayed Lai’s Twitter post from the same day, which stated, “It’s inspiring to see leaders from different nationalities and backgrounds finally coming together,” and tagged IPAC’s Twitter account.

Lai confirmed that de Pulford’s gratitude referred to the post shown by the prosecution. He explained that the tweet was written by his protégé, Simon Lee, and that he had only glanced at it.

The prosecution asked if that meant Lai was aware of IPAC’s existence. Lai responded that simply glancing at a post did not mean he had taken note of IPAC, reiterating that he did not know about it.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s response, “You’re welcome,” indicated that he had acknowledged the tweet and, therefore, IPAC. Lai argued that he would have replied “You’re welcome” regardless of whether he knew about IPAC or not, as it was a polite response to de Pulford’s gratitude.

Judge Esther Toh pressed further, stating that Lai had testified he only became aware of IPAC in court, yet de Pulford had thanked him for posting about IPAC on June 13, and Lai had responded politely. She asked whether Lai would now consider his previous statement “not knowing IPAC” to be inaccurate. Lai repeated that he had not paid attention to IPAC.

Toh clarified that she was not asking whether Lai had “paid attention” but whether his statement that he had “never heard of IPAC” was now proven inaccurate. Lai insisted, “I was not inaccurate, because that’s my impression.”

The prosecution then accused Lai of lying to the court at least three times about not knowing IPAC. Lai denied the accusation, saying, “no need for me to lie, if I know IPAC just no big deal. Why should I lie? It’s not a crime to know IPAC.”

15:00 Lai Denies Seeking Foreign Support Before the National Security Law Took Effect; Judge Questions May 2020 “One Hongkonger, One Letter” Campaign

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Jimmy Lai had noticed the headline “Nine Legislatures Form Alliance to Resist the CCP.”

Lai responded that he believed he had seen it but did not remember if he had paid attention to it.

Judge Lee then asked whether, before the implementation of the National Security Law in June 2020, Lai sought foreign support.

Lai replied that he had hoped for foreign support at the time but did not actively seek it.

Referring to the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign in May 2020, Judge Lee questioned whether Lai was seeking foreign support at that time.

Lai confirmed that he was, stating that he had hoped for foreign support in May but was unsure whether he was still seeking it in June.

The prosecution cited that between May 25 and 27, Lai launched the “One Hongkonger, One Letter” campaign and stated in a Fox Business interview that the CCP should be changed, with sanctions and freezing corrupt officials’ bank accounts as possible actions.

The prosecution argued that this demonstrated Lai’s continuous efforts to seek international support.

Lai said he did not remember.

The prosecution further asserted that Lai had been in contact with U.S. officials through Mark Simon, which aligned with his goal of seeking international support to block the implementation of the National Security Law.

Lai confirmed this.

Lai reiterated that he did not read articles about IPAC.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked why Lai claimed to have seen the articles but did not pay attention to them.

Lai responded that he had not read them in detail and that such names held no significance to him.

Judge Toh then asked whether terms like LIHKG and “Lam Chau” (Mutual Destruction) also held no significance to him.

Lai explained that because these terms were frequently mentioned, he understood “Lam Chau” as referring to “Lam Chau Bar” (Finn Lau).

Judge Lee asked whether Lai had consistently ignored these names.

Lai confirmed that he had.

The prosecution then cited information sent to Lai by Benedict Rogers and Luke de Pulford, which stated that IPAC was composed of legislators from different countries to monitor China’s recent developments, with five key focus areas, including upholding international order and protecting human rights.

The prosecution questioned whether these objectives aligned with Lai’s long-standing pursuit of human rights and democracy.

Lai replied that he had not read the materials because de Pulford merely wanted him to publish an article, which he had no interest in.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was uninterested in all organizations that defend human rights.

Lai denied this and reiterated that he simply had not read that particular document.

The prosecution pointed out that the document stated that Japanese politician Shiori Yamao and former UK Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith were co-chairs of IPAC.

The prosecution asked whether Lai knew that Smith was an IPAC co-chair.

Lai stated that he did not know and only learned about him in court.

Regarding Shiori Yamao, Lai said he had never expected Japan to be involved in Hong Kong’s social movements and was very surprised when he found out.

The prosecution displayed a conversation between Lai and de Pulford, where de Pulford asked Lai to forward a Twitter link.

The court displayed the linked post, which included a photo of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio—whom Lai had previously stated he had planned to meet.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had clicked on the post.

Lai said he had not, explaining that he had intended to meet Rubio because he was influential but could not recall whether the meeting actually happened.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai sought a meeting with Rubio to gain international support for Hong Kong affairs.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution further questioned whether Lai sought sanctions through this meeting.

Lai denied this, stating that the meeting did not ultimately take place.

The prosecution then asked about the purpose of the meeting.

Lai responded that it was to support Hong Kong.

The prosecution pressed further, asking in what way he sought support for Hong Kong.

Lai simply stated, “Support for Hong Kong in general.”

The prosecution then pointed out that the Twitter post featuring Rubio also included Shiori Yamao and Iain Duncan Smith.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had noticed this.

Lai responded that he had not shared the post.

14:50 Prosecution Questions Whether Lai Still Supported the “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” Slogan After the National Security Law; Lai Calls It a Hypothetical Question and Declines to Respond

The prosecution cited a message Jimmy Lai sent to Luke de Pulford, stating:

“Sorry that we couldn’t make your news on the front page because it coincides with June 4th reporting. Cheers, Jimmy.”

De Pulford responded:

“No problem. I understand.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had read the news, since he told de Pulford it could not be placed on the front page.

Lai said he did not recall reading it but remembered flipping through the newspaper and seeing the article on a certain page.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping repeatedly questioned whether Lai had actually read the paper.

Lai insisted that he had not read it but had simply flipped through the pages and saw that the front page covered the June 4th incident.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai saw the headline about IPAC.

Lai stated that if it wasn’t the headline, he had only glanced at the overall view of the article, emphasizing that he did not read the full text.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned why, if Lai considered this issue so trivial, he specifically told de Pulford, “Sorry, we couldn’t put your news on the front page.”

Lai explained that since de Pulford had requested front-page placement, it was only polite to apologize when that was not possible.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pressed further, asking why Lai would apologize if he truly did not care about the issue.

Lai replied that it was out of courtesy.

The prosecution then presented a June 5, 2020, article from Apple Daily titled “Nine Legislatures Form Alliance to Resist the CCP,” which appeared on page A12.

Lai stated that this was not a “prominent place.”

The prosecution displayed an enlarged version of the page’s header in court, revealing a design featuring the phrase “The Evil Law Approaches”.

Lai stated that this design had always been there.

The prosecution asked who had designed it.

Lai responded that he did not know and had not paid attention to it.

The prosecution then pointed out that next to the phrase “The Evil Law Approaches,” the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” appeared as an image.

The prosecution asked whether Lai supported the slogan.

Lai responded that it was a widely used slogan at the time and that many people chanted it.

Judge Toh asked whether Lai opposed the slogan.

Lai said he had not thought about it.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai did not know whether he supported it or not.

Lai reiterated that he had not considered whether to support it, only that it was widely discussed at the time.

Judge Toh asked again, “Do you support it or not?”

Lai stated that he had not considered supporting it at the time, but if the newspaper had published it, “Then yes, I supported it.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai still supported this idea after the implementation of the National Security Law.

Lai responded that the publication occurred before the National Security Law, and the prosecution’s question was hypothetical, so he would not answer it.

The prosecution repeatedly pressed the question and finally stated, “So, you support ‘Liberate Hong Kong’?”

Lai denied this.

14:33 Prosecution Questions Why Lai Continued Acting as a Liaison if He Was Unconcerned About IPAC News

The prosecution presented evidence showing that in June 2020, Jimmy Lai forwarded a message from Luke de Pulford to Chan Pui-man, stating:

“Hi Jimmy, Luke de Pulford here. If they want to include me in the story, please let me give new photos – Apple Daily ones are bad.”

Lai forwarded the message to Chan Pui-man, adding:

“Pui-man, please handle. Thanks. Jimmy.”

Chan responded by asking, “Should this be embargoed until tomorrow morning?”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was aware of IPAC at the time.

Lai denied this, stating that he had merely forwarded the message to Chan.

The prosecution then pointed out that after receiving Chan’s question, Lai responded, “Let me ask him and revert.”

Since Lai had already shared de Pulford’s contact with Chan, the prosecution questioned why Lai personally contacted de Pulford if he truly did not care about the matter.

Lai responded that he felt responsible for replying to Chan.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked why Lai did not instruct Chan to contact de Pulford directly.

Lai replied that it was a matter of courtesy.

Judge Toh pressed further, stating that Chan was Lai’s employee.

Lai responded that even though Chan worked for him, this was not his usual practice.

The prosecution argued that if Lai did not care about the issue, he would not have followed up with de Pulford.

Lai responded that he was concerned about properly answering Chan.

The prosecution questioned again why Lai did not simply tell Chan to contact de Pulford directly.

Lai explained that he needed to complete his task.

The prosecution then displayed a conversation between Lai and de Pulford, in which de Pulford stated that he had already explained the situation to the editors.

Regarding Lai’s conversation with Chan Pui-man, the prosecution showed that Lai continued forwarding messages from de Pulford, including:

“No. It’s embargoed until Friday your time.”

Lai also forwarded his own message to de Pulford to Chan:

“Luke, we put it in tomorrow’s newspaper. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The prosecution pointed out that Lai was eager to forward de Pulford’s messages to Chan Pui-man.

Lai reiterated that he was responsible for completing his task.

The prosecution asked whether Apple Daily ultimately published the information.

Lai responded that he believed so.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s message to Chan Pui-man constituted an editorial directive.

Lai stated that he was merely passing along an article, which did not constitute an editorial directive.

The prosecution argued that Lai instructed Chan to handle it.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then stated that this was an editorial directive.

Lai disagreed, explaining that he simply forwarded the article for Chan to decide, rather than issuing an editorial directive.

The prosecution countered by noting that Lai had promised de Pulford that the article would be placed in a “prominent place.”

Lai acknowledged this.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai’s message to Chan was an instruction to publish the article in the next day’s newspaper.

Lai responded that he had merely forwarded his message to de Pulford to Chan, informing her of the publication schedule.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pressed further, asking why Lai sent this message to Chan.

Lai replied that it was for her reference.

12:40 Lai Says Under Cross-Examination That He Used Apple Daily to Help Promote IPAC

Messages showed that Luke de Pulford had sent Jimmy Lai a document titled Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), which stated that the organization’s purpose was “to reform how democratic countries approach the People’s Republic of China.”

The prosecution asked whether IPAC’s mission aligned with Lai’s long-standing stance.

Lai initially stated that he had not read the press release but, when pressed, agreed.

The document listed IPAC’s co-chairs, including Shiori Yamao (Japan), Iain Duncan Smith (UK), and Marco Rubio (US).

Lai stated that he had never heard of Yamao, that he had only heard of Duncan Smith in court, but that he knew of Rubio.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had ever met Rubio in the U.S..

Lai responded that he had originally scheduled a meeting with Rubio but could not recall whether it actually took place, as Rubio was extremely busy.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had met Rubio during his October 2019 U.S. trip.

Lai stated that he had not, as that trip was made with Martin Lee.

The prosecution asked whether Lai ultimately did not travel to the U.S. between June and July 2020.

Lai agreed, stating that he had wanted to meet Rubio if possible because he was a very influential senator.

The prosecution asked whether Lai sought international support.

Lai denied this, reiterating that he wanted to meet Rubio because of his importance.

The prosecution presented a June 1, 2020, message from de Pulford to Lai, stating that IPAC’s launch was delayed. Lai had responded “OK.”

De Pulford later confirmed the launch and asked:

“Did you release your front page the previous evening? If not, you could have it for Monday’s paper.”

Lai replied:

“I don’t know if it’s the front page, but I’ll try to put it in a prominent position.”

The prosecution asked whether the “launch” referred to IPAC.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked whether de Pulford had asked Lai to publish IPAC-related content in Apple Daily.

Lai agreed, saying that it was possibly an article or something similar.

The prosecution asked whether de Pulford was referring specifically to an article related to IPAC.

Lai stated that he was unsure, as the message did not explicitly say so.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what de Pulford had wanted Lai to put on the front page.

Lai responded that he could not remember what de Pulford had sent him.

Judge Toh asked whether it was related to IPAC.

Lai said he did not know what de Pulford had sent but admitted that de Pulford had requested its publication in Apple Daily.

Judge Toh asked whether it could have been an advertisement.

Lai stated, “It would not have been an advertisement.”

Judge Toh pressed further, asking what exactly de Pulford had sent.

Lai stated that he did not know.

Judge Toh asked whether Lai had asked de Pulford about the content.

Lai replied that he had simply responded that he would “try to put it in a prominent position.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai knew what was to be published.

Lai stated that he did not, as he had left it to his colleagues to handle.

The prosecution presented a June 3, 2020, message from de Pulford to Lai, stating:

“If they want to include me in the story, please let me give new photos – Apple Daily ones are bad.”

Lai then sent de Pulford the contact information of Chan Pui-man, telling him:

“Please send your photos to our editor-in-chief.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai knew at the time that IPAC was about to launch.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had used Apple Daily to help promote IPAC.

Lai agreed, stating:

“I followed up on all the conversations to facilitate what he wanted.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked,

“So, you say you didn’t know what IPAC was, yet you agreed to publish related content in Apple Daily?”

Lai agreed.

12:30 Judge Questions Why Lai Claimed Not to Care About De Pulford’s Message on IPAC

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang referenced that on May 31, 2020, Jimmy Lai received a WhatsApp message from Benedict Rogers, mentioning that he was an advisor to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), with the organization’s full name included in the message. Two weeks later, Lai saw an Apple Daily “Li Pak-Fong” column article, which mentioned Finn Lau and the involvement of foreign figures in an organization. Judge Lee asked whether Lai had linked the organization mentioned in the message to the one Finn Lau was involved with.

Lai responded that at the time, he did not know Finn Lau was connected to the organization and that such names were not important to him. Even seeing the full name of the organization, he did not take it seriously.

The prosecution cited Rogers’ message where he asked Lai for permission to share his contact with Luke de Pulford, to which Lai agreed. Shortly afterward, de Pulford messaged Lai:

De Pulford: “Hi Jimmy, Luke de Pulford here. Hope you’re ok.”

Lai: “Yes, Luke, of course.”

De Pulford: “Can you speak now?”

Lai: “I call you now.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had spoken with de Pulford.

Lai said he did not remember.

The prosecution pointed out that logically, the conversation should have been about IPAC.

Lai responded, “Logic does not make it a fact.”

The prosecution then referenced another June 1, 2020 message from de Pulford to Lai, mentioning an “IPAC briefing” and sharing a document link for more information.

Lai replied: “OK. Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had, by then, realized that “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” referred to “IPAC.”

Lai responded that he had not noticed, stating that he replied “Thanks” to anything people sent him.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked why Lai did not pay attention to the information de Pulford had sent.

Lai said he had not opened the document and did not take note of IPAC.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned why Lai had ignored both Rogers’ and de Pulford’s mentions of IPAC.

Lai maintained that he had not paid attention, as it was not something he cared about.

Judge D’Almada Remedios asked why Lai would engage in conversation with someone he did not care about and why he did not simply tell Rogers he was uninterested and refuse to share his number with de Pulford.

Lai replied, “Because I am not that rude.”

The prosecution argued that since Lai had explicitly agreed to share his number, he clearly did care about the matter.

Lai responded that he could not refuse such a request, but it did not mean he was highly interested in the materials de Pulford sent.

The prosecution countered that Lai had told de Pulford, “I call you now,” suggesting he was interested.

Lai reiterated that he was merely being polite and that it did not indicate interest, adding that he did not personally know de Pulford.

Judge D’Almada Remedios questioned why Lai would call someone he did not know.

Lai replied that they had been introduced through Rogers.

Judge D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai called de Pulford purely out of politeness.

Lai confirmed this but stated he could not remember the conversation’s content.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had met de Pulford in 2019 during the district council election monitoring delegation.

Lai admitted they had met at a dinner, but he did not consider that “knowing” him.

Judge D’Almada Remedios pressed further, confirming that Lai had met de Pulford in November 2019.

Lai acknowledged this, saying, “Yes, but at a hotel—”.

Judge D’Almada Remedios interrupted loudly, saying, “Don’t answer with ‘but’—just yes or no!”

Lai responded, “Don’t get mad so easily, lady.”

12:07 Rogers Informed Lai of His Role as IPAC Advisor – Lai Says He Did Not Associate the Abbreviation with IPAC at the Time

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai about his knowledge of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).

The prosecution stated that during Lai’s June 16, 2020, meeting with Chan Tsz-wah, Lai asked why Chan was not involved in IPAC. Lai testified that he did not know the name “IPAC” at the time, and the term was not mentioned in their conversation.

The prosecution further claimed that Lai asked whether funds from the “Reignite Hong Kong” project could be used for IPAC. Lai denied this, calling Chan’s testimony fabricated.

The prosecution cited Chan’s testimony, which stated that Lai considered IPAC extremely important, believing that “international support was essential for effectiveness.” Lai disagreed, reiterating that he was unaware of IPAC at the time.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had stated at least three times in court that he had never heard of IPAC before the trial, did not know of its existence, and was unaware that Benedict Rogers, founder of the human rights organization Hong Kong Watch, was an IPAC advisor.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then presented a May 31, 2020, WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Benedict Rogers:

Rogers: “Hi Jimmy, my friend Luke de Pulford would like to be in touch with you regarding a new Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China which is setting up. I’m also involved in it as an advisor. May I give him your number?”

Lai: “Of course. Thank you. Cheers. Jimmy.”

Lai testified that he did not associate “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” with “IPAC” at the time.

The prosecution argued that Lai was already aware of IPAC on May 31, 2020.

Lai responded that although he had seen the message, he did not remember or retain the information, as he considered it unimportant.

The prosecution pressed whether Lai had never heard of the organization.

Lai insisted that he had never heard of “IPAC” specifically and was unaware of its existence.

He explained that he only recognized the full name “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” and did not associate it with the abbreviation “IPAC.”

The prosecution then presented a tweet from Lai’s Twitter account, posted around August 14, 2020, which retweeted an IPAC post stating:

“Police couldn’t take into custody Apple Daily’s inspirational courage, commitment, and conscience｜writes #IPAC advisor @benedictrogers.”

The prosecution referred to Lai’s previous testimony, where, upon being shown this tweet in court, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai knew Rogers was linked to IPAC, and Lai responded that he did not.

The prosecution challenged this, arguing that Lai’s WhatsApp messages clearly showed that he knew Rogers was an IPAC advisor.

Lai maintained that he did not know, reiterating that his understanding was only of the full name “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” and not its abbreviation, IPAC.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked again, confirming whether Lai had been informed that Rogers was part of the “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China.”

Lai confirmed this but stated that at the time, the tweet was forwarded by Simon Lee.

10:58 Lai States He Does Not Know the ‘Lam Chau Team’ or ‘Fight for Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong’

The prosecution presented a May 28, 2020 message from Chan Tsz-wah to Jimmy Lai, which included a LIHKG link with the title:

“Breaking: After Lam Chau Comes the Dawn! Lam Chau Team’s ‘Reignite Hong Kong Plan’ Crowdfunding Goes Live!”

Lai replied: “Will read it later when I have time.”

Lai stated that he never clicked on the link because he was not interested in crowdfunding. He explained that while he had said he would read it when he had time, he eventually forgot about it.

The prosecution argued that Lai had previously testified that he did not know the “Lam Chau Team”, yet this conversation directly referenced it, suggesting that Lai’s claim was inaccurate.

Lai denied this, asserting that he simply had not paid attention to it at the time.

The prosecution pointed out that Chan had sent him a link explicitly mentioning the “Lam Chau Team”.

Lai responded that this did not mean he had taken notice of it.

The prosecution insisted that Lai must have known about the “Lam Chau Team.”

Lai denied this, saying, “You can suggest, but that’s not true.”

The prosecution displayed the LIHKG post in question, which stated:

“In May 2019, ‘Abolish Hong Kong’s Separate Customs Status, Strike Back Against the CCP’ seemed like a fantasy. Back then, we Hongkongers had yet to develop the determination to go all in against the CCP.”

Lai reiterated that he had never read the post.

Regarding the sixth meeting between Lai and Chan in June 2020, Chan testified that Lai had instructed him to ‘let other SWHK members continue their work in publicity and international lobbying.’

Lai denied ever saying this.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether, when Lai received the LIHKG link about the Lam Chau Team, he had noticed that Finn Lau or the Lam Chau Team were advocating sanctions against Hong Kong.

Lai said he had not.

Lai also denied ever saying that “other SWHK members should continue their work in publicity and international lobbying”, adding that Chan had never mentioned “SWHK” either.

The prosecution asked whether Chan had mentioned the “Lam Chau Team” or the “Fight for Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong” (SWHK) team.

Lai said he had not.

The prosecution then presented a June 15, 2020 Apple Daily report, published one day before Lai’s sixth meeting with Chan, titled:

“Lam Chau Leader Joins International Coalition to Resist.”

Lai had previously testified that he had glanced at the report. The prosecution asked whether Lai knew at the time that Finn Lau was lobbying for sanctions against Hong Kong.

Lai said he did not, explaining that he only glanced at the report because it contained many photos.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether the report was published in an Apple Daily gossip column.

Lai agreed, stating that he never read gossip columns, but when flipping through the newspaper, he had noticed a page with many photos and glanced at it.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had noticed the “SWHK” logo and slogans in the report.

Lai said he had not, emphasizing that he had only seen many photos of people.

The prosecution asked whether Lai and Chan had discussed the report during their meeting.

Lai said they had not.

10:33 Lai Denies Being Told That Andy Li Would Lead International Lobbying, Calls Chan’s Testimony Fabricated

The prosecution cited a January 2020 WhatsApp exchange between Jimmy Lai and Chan Tsz-wah:

January 21-22, 2020

Chan Tsz-wah: “Hi Jimmy, I have some progressive updates for you – some good, some bad. Thanks. Wayland.”

Lai: “Ok. I’ll leave for Bangkok tomorrow from here. I’m in Taipei and will be back in HK on the 29th. Can we talk on the phone? Thanks. Jimmy.”

Chan: “Sure.”

January 26, 2020

Lai: “Wayland. Is now a good time to call you? Cheers. Jimmy.”

Chan: “Yes. 19:00. I am driving.”

Lai: “I’ll be at dinner with journalist friends. Will call you again tomorrow. Cheers.”

Chan: “Sure.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai ultimately spoke with Chan on the phone. Lai replied that he did not.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai and Chan did speak on the phone after their January meeting in Taipei. Lai responded that he did not remember.

The prosecution further stated that during the call, Chan had informed Lai that Andy Li (Lee Yu-hin) and Finn Lau had agreed to support international lobbying and would follow Lai’s direction, specifically mentioning that Andy Li would focus on international lobbying. The prosecution then asked whether Lai had expected both men to lead international lobbying efforts. Lai denied this, claiming that Chan had fabricated his testimony because he had only learned of Andy Li’s existence during the trial.

The prosecution then argued that on January 26, during the phone call, Chan had updated Lai and informed him that Finn Lau was unwilling to engage in electoral politics but was fully committed to international lobbying.

Lai responded that he did not recall discussing Finn Lau again after their Taipei meeting and that he had never heard of a “Japan line” (a reference to international lobbying in Japan).

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had reassured Chan by saying, “Don’t be anxious, this is a long war.” Lai replied that he did not recall having spoken with Chan on the phone at all and reiterated that he only learned of Andy Li in court and did not remember discussing Finn Lau after the Taipei meeting.

The prosecution pressed further, pointing out that at Lai’s sixth meeting with Chan on June 16, 2020, Chan had informed him that Finn Lau had been attacked in the UK.

Lai confirmed this.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios remarked, “That meeting also took place after the Taipei meeting!”

Lai responded, “OK.”

Referring to Lai’s January 26 message, in which he had told Chan, “I’ll be at dinner with journalist friends. Will call you again tomorrow.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai and Chan had subsequently spoken on the phone.

Lai replied that he believed they had not.

The prosecution then asked whether Chan had ever informed Lai what the “good news” or “bad news” he mentioned earlier referred to.

Lai stated that he could not remember, noting that the next day was Lunar New Year.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether between January 26 and February 1, Chan had informed Lai what the good or bad news was.

Lai responded that he did not recall any such communication.

10:25 Prosecution Questions Why Lai Did Not Warn Chan Tsz-wah Against Violating the National Security Law – Lai Says ‘He Is an Adult, I Am Not His Father’

The prosecution presented a May 2020 conversation between Jimmy Lai and Chan Tsz-wah:

Chan Tsz-wah: “Martin taught me that ‘cometh the hour, cometh the man.’ There is no turning back for me, and I feel a duty to conserve our forces as much as possible. I won’t give up either. If all of you fall, I will be the last man standing. The best is yet to come. Wayland.”

Lai: “That’s why you and your comrades are so important. This is going to be a long war, and you are our hope of victory. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s reference to a “long war” meant he wanted Chan to continue fighting after the National Security Law (NSL) took effect. Lai denied this, stating that he was not instructing Chan to continue fighting, but rather expressing that if one chose to fight, it would be a prolonged struggle—not an order to fight to the end.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had cautioned Chan about the NSL. Lai replied that there was no need to do so.

The prosecution pressed further, pointing out that Lai had previously testified that he reminded employees and friends to be cautious. Lai responded that the contexts were different.

The prosecution challenged this, arguing that both situations involved the imminent implementation of the NSL. Lai replied that at the time, Chan was worried and had declared that he would “be the last man standing,” so Lai was merely encouraging him, adding that “there was no room for caution” in that moment.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked about Lai’s statement: “You are our hope of victory.” Lai reiterated that it was meant as encouragement and praise, as Chan had said he would be the last to remain.

Judge Toh questioned whether Lai was not merely praising Chan, but actually encouraging him to fight. Lai responded that he was only referring to a “long war.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked whether Chan was fighting for Lai. Lai denied this, stating that he meant “Hong Kong’s hope.”

The prosecution then asked what Lai meant by “long war.” Lai responded that he was referring to the long-standing resistance movement against the Chinese Communist Party’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s freedoms.

The prosecution then referenced Lai’s sixth meeting with Chan on June 16, 2020. According to Chan’s testimony, during that meeting, Chan expressed concerns about the NSL and said, “I think we should retreat now.”

Lai denied that Chan ever said “we should retreat” but confirmed that he personally believed at the time that the NSL was “all thunder, no rain.” However, he insisted that this statement was not meant to reassure Chan.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had warned Chan at the time. Lai stated that he did not, as everyone was already aware that the NSL was about to take effect.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai specifically told Chan not to violate the NSL. Lai responded, “No, because he is an adult, and I am not his father. He knows what to do.”

10:20 Message Shows Lai Telling Chan Tsz-wah to “Fight to the Last” – Lai Says It Was Meant as Consolation

The prosecution presented Chan Tsz-wah’s response to Lai:

Chan: “Senior Lai, at this point, the situation is difficult to reverse. My only concern is the personal safety of you, Martin, and your families. Please prioritize your safety and the survival of your business above all else. The national security law mainly targets overseas and domestic militant activists, Hong Kong independence advocates, and those inciting the public. You must be cautious. Wayland.”

Lai: “Wayland, let’s not worry about personal security. Once one comes out to join the fight for freedom, one is prepared to fight to the last. We may not win, but we must persist. Don’t worry. Better days will come. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The prosecution pointed out that Chan had expressed concerns about the NSL, yet Lai still encouraged him to persist. Lai denied this, stating that his words were meant as consolation, a way for a senior figure to comfort a younger person. He explained that since Chan was worried about Lai and his family’s safety, he told Chan not to worry.

The prosecution then questioned Lai’s message, particularly his statement: “We may not win, but we must persist.” Lai explained that this was from the perspective of those involved in the movement.

The prosecution asked if that included Lai himself. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was trying to reassure Chan. Lai confirmed that Chan was worried at the time, so he wanted to comfort him.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai wanted Chan to continue his actions. Lai responded that his statement, “Once one comes out to join the fight for freedom, one is prepared to fight to the last,” was an “objective view.” He explained that the belief that “we may not win, but we must persist” was also an “objective view” shared by those involved in the movement.

The prosecution then asked whether “fight to the last” referred to actions after the implementation of the NSL. Lai confirmed that it did.

10:10 Prosecution Questions Lai on His Views Regarding the National Security Law

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai about his views on the National Security Law (NSL). They cited earlier testimony from accomplice witness Chan Tsz-wah, who stated that during a June 16, 2020, meeting with Lai, Lai described the NSL as “all thunder, no rain” and allegedly said, “I will lead by example, continue calling for sanctions, and raising awareness through various media.”

During cross-examination, Lai denied ever saying he would ‘lead by example’ in calling for sanctions, calling the claim “crazy.” He insisted that he had always been cautious and would even stop interviews if the topic came up.

The prosecution then presented a May 21, 2020, message exchange, approximately a month before the meeting, between Lai and then-Apple Daily Associate Publisher Chan Pui-man. Chan had sent Lai a news link from HK01 titled:

“Exclusive: NPC to Announce ‘Hong Kong Version of the National Security Law’ Tonight – Plugging National Security Loopholes, Different from Article 23.”

She also informed Lai that a press conference was scheduled for 9:45 PM that night, where more details would be revealed.

Lai responded: “F*, it’s coming!”**

The prosecution cited Lai’s previous testimony, in which he explained that his reaction was due to confirming the NSL was imminent and hearing that it involved severe measures.

The prosecution further pointed out that Lai forwarded the same news link to Chan Tsz-wah, repeating the message: “F*, it’s coming! You’re right!”**

The prosecution then asked what exactly Chan Tsz-wah had been “right” about. Lai responded that he did not remember, adding that the last time they had met was in January 2020 in Taipei.

10:05 Court in Session

The Witness