Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who faces charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, appeared Monday for the 131st day of his trial at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 39th day of testimony and the 13th day of cross-examination by prosecutors, who continued questioning him about his knowledge of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).

Prosecutors referenced a July 2020 Twitter post by Lai that mentioned the United Kingdom’s suspension of its extradition agreement with Hong Kong and IPAC. They argued that even if Lai’s apprentice, Simon Lee (Lee Siu-fu), wrote the post, Lai must have read it at the time, understood IPAC’s founding purpose, and been aware of its ties to the activist group “Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong” (SWHK).

Lai denied the claims. When asked whether he was distancing himself from IPAC, he again rejected the assertion, maintaining that he had never paid attention to the group.

The case is being heard by National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Prosecutors include Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai’s defense team consists of 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 Transcript

16:33 Court Adjourns

16:08 Chan Pui-man Sent ‘Vote to Stop Police Brutality’ Poster to Lai; Lai Says Chan Was Seeking His Opinion, Unaware of Poster’s Origin

The prosecution presented a November 16, 2019 conversation between Jimmy Lai and Chan Pui-man, in which Chan sent Lai an image with the slogan “Vote to Stop Police Brutality.”

(Chan Pui-man sends an image with the slogan “Vote to Stop Police Brutality”)

Lai: “Pui-man, can we make the poster longer so that more of the police officer’s body is visible? That would enhance the violent effect. Please show me again. Thanks.”

(Chan Pui-man sends two revised versions of the “Vote to Stop Police Brutality” poster.)

Lai: “Try making this one in a vertical format too.”

(Chan Pui-man sends another version of the “Vote to Stop Police Brutality” poster.)

Lai: “Yes, this one. Narrow the sides a bit to increase focus. Please have it made. Thanks.”

Chan: “Since it’s a screenshot from a video, enlarging it would reduce clarity. Also, I need to ask the video owner.”

(Chan Pui-man sends another version of the “Vote to Stop Police Brutality” poster.)

Lai: “Right, it doesn’t feel very violent. You all should pick the one that looks the most violent… or the best. Thanks.”

Chan: “Okay, we’ll use this one.”

Lai: “It should work. I’ll show it to them and get back to you. Meanwhile, have the team create another one that they think looks violent and impactful. Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was instructing Chan Pui-man on how to enhance the police violence effect in the image. Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked if Lai specifically directed Chan to alter the image to make it appear more violent. Lai responded that he was reviewing the image and providing feedback to improve it.

The prosecution argued that Lai was advising Chan on how to modify the image to achieve his desired effect. Lai replied that Chan had sought his opinion, so he provided it.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked what this poster was, and why it was related to Apple Daily.

Lai responded:

“That’s a good question!”

The prosecution then pressed Lai on whether he knew the source of the image.

Lai stated that he did not know. The prosecution asked whether the image originated from Apple Daily. Lai responded that he did not know, as it was not mentioned in the conversation and reiterated that it was not an editorial directive.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai commented, ‘It doesn’t feel very violent,’ suggesting he wanted the image to appear more violent. Lai denied this, stating that his intent was to ensure the image accurately reflected the reality of police violence.

The prosecution asked if Lai’s comments were an editorial directive. Lai replied that an editorial directive involves instructing “what” should be done, whereas his role was about “how” to improve the image.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned whether Lai was trying to enhance the effect of police violence in the image.

Lai argued that “enhance” could imply manipulation, which was not his intention.

Judge Toh countered by citing Lai’s own words:

“Can we make the poster longer so that more of the police officer’s body is visible? That would enhance the violent effect.”

Lai acknowledged this but insisted he did not instruct Chan to change anything.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai was issuing an editorial directive.

Lai denied this, stating he was merely offering feedback on how to improve the image.

Judge Lee then asked if the poster was related to a news report.

Lai replied that he did not know.

The prosecution then presented a message from Lai to Lee Cheuk-yan, stating:

“Brother Yan, they’ve decided to use these three designs, 1,500 copies each, okay? Thanks. Jimmy.”
“Brother Yan, they’ve decided to print 2,000 copies of each design. Thanks. Lai.”

The prosecution asked whether the posters were intended for promoting the District Council elections.

Lai responded that he did not know.

The prosecution then displayed another conversation between Lai and Lee Cheuk-yan, in which Lee said:

“In terms of violence, there’s the fire incidents, police brutality, and the systemic injustice that has triggered vigilante actions… The main takeaway: On 11/24, we must use our votes to express public opinion… We must vote to stop the excessive use of tear gas, which has led to a dioxin-related health crisis.”

Lai replied that he would pass it on to Ryan Law Wai-kwong.

Lai stated that this had nothing to do with the posters.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned this, pointing out that the message explicitly referenced using votes to express public opinion, just as the posters said ‘Vote to Stop Police Brutality.’

The prosecution asked whether Lai acknowledged that the posters included the slogan ‘Vote to Stop Police Brutality’.

Lai agreed that this phrase appeared on the posters.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked whether Lee Cheuk-yan had sent the posters to Lai.

Lai replied that he did not know the posters’ origin.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked how Lai could be certain that Chan was seeking his opinion.

Lai responded that while Chan did not explicitly say she was asking for his opinion, she sent the images to him, and he felt she sought his input because of his long experience in the fashion industry:

“She just asked me for my visual judgment.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then questioned whether Lai’s comments would still be considered an editorial directive if Chan had not explicitly asked for his input.

Lai stated that if he had told Chan to use a different image altogether, that would be an editorial directive, but he had not done so.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked:

“Taking a step back, who instructed Chan to prepare these posters?”

Lai responded:

“I don’t know. It’s also possible Chan decided on her own.”

15:54 Lai Confirms Suggesting to Martin Lee That Protesters Surround Government House to Force Carrie Lam into Dialogue

The prosecution presented a May 2019 conversation between Jimmy Lai and Martin Lee, in which Lai proposed surrounding Government House to pressure then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam into dialogue with the public. Lai’s message read:

“Should we consider surrounding Government House to demand that Carrie Lam engage in dialogue with the public or the pro-democracy camp? This won’t actually force her to come out and talk, but it will create public pressure and a strong media narrative that she is too afraid to face the people. We need to ignite public attention everywhere to highlight the severity of the Extradition Bill. Over a hundred schools’ students and teachers have protested against the bill, and public concern is high. Should we mobilize various industries to issue statements of protest—such as the medical sector, construction industry, transport sector, accounting professionals, and even the catering industry? Let’s discuss this tonight. Thanks. Jimmy.”

Under questioning from the prosecution, Lai stated that this was merely a suggestion, intended to remind different sectors of society to stand up against the Extradition Bill.

The prosecution specifically questioned Lai about his statement:

“This won’t actually force her to come out and talk, but it will create public pressure and a strong media narrative that she is too afraid to face the people.”

The prosecution asked why Lai wanted to create this image of Carrie Lam.

Lai responded that because Lam refused to engage in dialogue, people would naturally step up and express their opinions.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had not only sent this message to Martin Lee but also to Albert Ho and Lee Cheuk-yan.

Lai confirmed this.

15:35 Break

15:10 Judge Asks if Lai Believes the Government Uses Fear to Act; Lai Confirms

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s April 28, 2019 op-ed column “成敗樂一笑” (Laughing at Success and Failure), titled “Please Stand Up to Defend the Last Line of Defense.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wrote this article to encourage public participation in anti-extradition bill protests. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution cited a passage from the article:

“The purpose of this ‘extradition evil law’ is akin to the psychological effect of a terrorist attack, creating an ‘availability cascade’ that traps Hongkongers in a state of fear-induced obedience. This allows mainland China’s lawlessness to override Hong Kong’s judicial system, turning the rule of law into rule by men…”

The article also referenced Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his book Thinking, Fast and Slow:

“Kahneman, an Israeli teaching in the U.S., recounted his experience returning to Israel during a period of frequent bus bombings. Between 2001 and 2004, these attacks killed 236 people—far fewer than traffic accidents. Yet, whenever he approached a traffic light turning red and saw a bus nearby, he instinctively accelerated to avoid being caught in a potential explosion.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai believed the Extradition Bill had effects similar to a “terrorist attack.”

Lai responded that he was explaining Kahneman’s theory, specifically the psychological impact of fear-driven behavior.

The prosecution pressed further: Did Lai mean that the bill was similar to a terrorist attack?

Lai reiterated that his article referred to Kahneman’s example, explaining how fear can lead to irrational behavior, such as Kahneman running a red light to avoid a bus. He emphasized that his point was about psychological effects, not literal equivalency.

The prosecution also cited another passage:

“The Chinese mainland’s strict surveillance over its people will, under our fear and silence, slowly be implemented in Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked: Was this related to the Extradition Bill?

Lai responded that it was a logical projection—if people were intimidated, such things could happen. He clarified that this was his projection, not a statement of fact.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked: Did Lai mean that people, out of fear of the bill, would act irrationally?

Lai agreed, citing Kahneman’s theory that fear leads to irrational decision-making.

The prosecution then accused Lai of intentionally instilling fear.

Lai denied this, claiming he was merely quoting an academic theory.

The prosecution then cited another passage from Lai’s article:

“In the future, our ID cards will have to be stored in mobile phones, allowing the government to track our movements, behaviors, communications, and calls through built-in surveillance software.”

The prosecution questioned whether this had any connection to the Extradition Bill.

Lai reiterated that this was a projection based on what was already happening in mainland China.

The prosecution pressed: But the amendment was proposed by the Hong Kong government, not the mainland government?

Lai responded that the bill itself could instill fear, and that out of fear, these events could gradually unfold.

The prosecution then cited another passage:

“We will be monitored by facial recognition systems everywhere, and like people in mainland China, our use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Google will be controlled. Sounds absurd? Yes, but this is exactly what Beijing aims to achieve with this ‘extradition evil law.’ The amendment is meant to destroy ‘One Country, Two Systems’—Xi Jinping’s biggest obstacle—and turn Hong Kong into ‘One Country, One System.’”

The prosecution asked if this was speculation.

Lai responded that it was his projection.

The prosecution then challenged him: Did he have any factual basis for these claims?

Lai responded that he did not need a factual basis, arguing that Kahneman’s research showed that fear leads to irrational behavior, and he logically inferred from this theory.

The prosecution accused Lai of fabricating the claim.

Lai denied this.

The prosecution then suggested that his article was meant to instill fear.

Lai denied the accusation, stating that the article was meant to alert readers to potential risks.

The prosecution then accused Lai of manipulating psychological effects to make people oppose the Extradition Bill.

Lai responded: “It’s not me using the psychological effect—it’s a Nobel Prize winner who proposed it.”

The prosecution then accused Lai of inciting hatred against the central government.

Lai denied this, stating: “I have no hatred.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked about another passage in Lai’s article:

“Yes, this ‘extradition evil law’ is meant to let Beijing’s claws tear apart the Basic Law and destroy the last line of defense for One Country, Two Systems, striking at the heart of Hong Kong’s core values.”

Judge Lee asked: Did this statement express what Lai believed to be the true intent of the bill?

Lai confirmed: “That was my projection.”

Judge Lee then asked: Did Lai present this as a fact rather than as a projection?

Lai insisted that it was his projection.

The prosecution then cited another passage:

“Under a system of rule by men, power alone dictates everything. Citizens will be forced to compromise under authoritarian rule. Without legal protection, all market activities will be at the mercy of those in power. Officials can arbitrarily crush businesses or let them thrive unchecked. Businesspeople will have no choice but to curry favor with officials, paying ‘protection fees’ for their survival. Corruption will become an unavoidable phenomenon in Hong Kong.”

The prosecution challenged Lai, suggesting that this prediction had no basis.

Lai defended his argument, stating that his projection was based on research by a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned whether the passage about businesses paying ‘protection fees’ contained any reference to psychological effects.

Lai explained that fear would lead people to total submission, which could result in such conditions developing.

He further elaborated that fear of extradition and being sent to China could lead to absolute obedience, which in turn could create such a scenario.

Lai admitted:

“I may have used my projection a little bit too much.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked:

“So do you believe the government would use people’s fear to act?”

Lai confirmed this.

Finally, the prosecution cited the concluding line of Lai’s article:

“Please believe in the power of the people—join today’s march against the evil law!”

The prosecution asked if this was Lai’s ultimate goal.

Lai confirmed this.

15:00 Lai Claims Extradition Bill Threatened Press Freedom; Prosecution Accuses Him of False Allegations

The prosecution presented an April 1, 2019 report titled:

“Jimmy Lai: If the Extradition Bill Passes, the Media Will Be Finished.”

The report stated that Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai participated in a Civil Human Rights Front protest against the Extradition Bill the day before. When asked why he took to the streets, Lai responded:

“This is a big deal, man. If this thing passes, we’re finished! The media will be finished! If you report on mainland China, they’ll say you’re revealing state secrets. If you criticize them, they’ll say you’re inciting subversion of state power. Then, it’s over—press freedom will be completely gone. Hongkongers must oppose this bill as much as possible. If it passes, we’re doomed—it’s worse than Article 23!”

The prosecution then referred to Lai’s March 30, 2019 conversation with Chan Pui-man, where he said:

“Pui-man, today’s headline was very well done. The only thing missing was mentioning how reporting on mainland China could easily be seen as revealing state secrets, and criticizing the Chinese government could be labeled as inciting subversion. But it’s already great.”

The prosecution pointed out that this same argument appeared in the April 1 report, where Lai stated:

“If you report on mainland China, they’ll say you’re revealing state secrets. If you criticize them, they’ll say you’re inciting subversion of state power.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai acknowledged that the 2019 proposed amendment to the Extradition Bill was meant to close legal loopholes in transferring fugitives between Hong Kong and other regions, including Taiwan.

Lai responded that this was merely an excuse.

The prosecution insisted that the amendment stemmed from a murder case in Taiwan. Lai countered:

“If this is the way people believe, there won’t be many people walking out on the street to protest against it. So this is not the concept people got from this”

The prosecution repeated that the Extradition Bill amendment was triggered by a murder case. Lai responded:

“but this is not how the people perceive it”

The prosecution asked whether the amendment had anything to do with news reporting.

Lai replied that extradition was related to China, which involved political sensitivities.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai agreed that the Extradition Bill was unrelated to journalism.

Lai agreed but emphasized that reporting on China could be labeled as revealing state secrets, and criticizing the Chinese government could be considered subversion, which had significant implications for the media.

The prosecution argued that even under Lai’s logic, criticizing China could be labeled as “subversion,” but this still had no connection to the Extradition Bill.

Lai disagreed, stating that before the bill, criticizing China did not result in extradition to the mainland for trial, but after the amendment, it could.

Lai added that this was not just his personal view but also the perspective of To Yiu-ming, a former assistant professor at Hong Kong Baptist University’s School of Communication, as cited in news reports.

The prosecution asked if Lai agreed that the amendment had no direct impact on press freedom.

Lai replied: “Superficially, yes, but in reality, no.” He reiterated that To Yiu-ming held the same view and that this was not speculation.

The prosecution then asked whether the amendment had any relation to the disclosure of state secrets.

Lai responded that it had an impact on press freedom.

The prosecution accused the report of making false allegations against both the Hong Kong and central governments, deliberately concealing facts to mislead the public.

Lai disagreed.

The prosecution further argued that the report incited hatred or hostility toward the central and Hong Kong governments.

Lai dismissed this claim as “Totally rubbish.”

The prosecution then suggested that Lai wanted people to adopt his views.

Lai denied this, stating that the report was only meant to provide information.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had discussed the report with editorial staff before publication.

Lai said he had not and stated that the report merely reflected public sentiment at the time, which was strongly opposed to the Extradition Bill amendment.

14:32 Lai Claims Message About ‘Scaring Businesspeople’ Was Commentary, Not an Editorial Directive

Regarding the July 1 Legislative Council (LegCo) storming incident, the prosecution presented a July 2, 2019, conversation between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai. The two discussed how to upload video clips to Apple Daily’s “Fruit Punch” (果燃台) platform. Lai mentioned that some new footage needed to be uploaded, while Cheung referenced a video featuring a young father.

Cheung later sent Lai a screenshot of the Apple Daily app, which displayed an article titled:

“A ‘martyr’ who stayed behind in LegCo: As a father, should I give up so easily for my son?”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted people to see the video of the young father. Lai responded that the conversation did not explicitly state this and that they were merely discussing uploading methods. Otherwise, he argued, Cheung would not have mentioned that the video had already been uploaded.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai had watched the videos on “Fruit Punch”. Lai said he generally did not watch them.

The prosecution pointed out that Cheung later sent Lai a screenshot of netizens’ comments, noting that many online users sympathized with the young father. Lai responded:

“Our job is to amplify that sentiment.”

The prosecution asked if Lai wanted to spread this sentiment to readers. Lai agreed.

The prosecution also presented a March 30, 2019 conversation between Lai and Chan Pui-man:

Lai: “Pui-man, today’s headline was very well done. The only thing missing was mentioning how reporting on mainland China could easily be seen as revealing state secrets, and criticizing the Chinese government could be labeled as inciting subversion. But it’s already great. Please continue covering the dangers faced by Hong Kong businessmen operating in the mainland—scare those businesspeople so that the pro-establishment camp won’t dare to act recklessly. Thanks, Lai.”

Chan Pui-man: “Received. The business sector has votes, so the government is making slight concessions. If they oppose the bill, the government will be in trouble.”

Lai: “Exactly. Dealing with these cowards might be our best weapon. Thanks, Lai.”

“Pui-man, today’s article was brilliant—it really hit the key points. Well done. Lai.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s instruction to ‘continue covering the dangers faced by Hong Kong businessmen in the mainland’ and to ‘scare those businesspeople’ was an editorial directive.

Lai denied that it was an editorial directive, claiming it was only a commentary.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s comment, “Today’s headline was very well done, but it could have mentioned how reporting on mainland China could be seen as revealing state secrets and criticizing the government could be labeled as inciting subversion,” was also an editorial directive.

Lai again claimed that this was just his opinion.

The prosecution suggested that the reporting aimed to push the business sector to join the opposition against the Extradition Bill.

Lai denied this, stating that the intention was not to “involve” them but to “inform” them.

The prosecution then asked about Lai’s remark that the reports should ‘scare those businesspeople’. Lai reiterated that he only wanted to “make them notice the danger.”

The prosecution then accused Lai of instilling fear in Hongkongers to make them oppose the bill. Lai insisted that he was simply trying to make people aware of the risks.

The prosecution asked whether Lai intended to alert the business sector to these risks. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then referenced a conversation three days before Lai’s exchange with Chan Pui-man, in which Mark Simon had shared James Cunningham’s opinion with Lai:

“Once this becomes a human rights issue, it will involve the biases of defeatists. Therefore, it is important to involve the business and legal sectors.”

The prosecution suggested that Lai had taken Cunningham’s advice into account when later telling Chan to ‘scare those businesspeople’.

Lai denied this, insisting that his discussion with Chan was a natural exchange and that he was not influenced by Cunningham’s views.

12:53 Lunch

12:45 Lai Confirms Issuing Editorial Directives to Garner Public Understanding After LegCo Storming Incident

The prosecution presented messages between Lai and then-Apple Daily deputy chief editor Chan Pui-man on July 2, 2019, the day after the Legislative Council (LegCo) storming incident. Lai had forwarded to Chan a message he had sent earlier to then-Apple Daily Digital News Director Cheung Chi-wai:

Lai: “Nick, very well done. The young people storming LegCo weighs heavily on my heart. What do you think the pro-democracy camp should do to ensure the movement can continue? Fortunately, the public seems to have some understanding toward the young people storming LegCo, so the damage may not be too severe. What do you think?”

“This young father spoke very well—it will be inspiring for many people.”

“This is an interview with one of the four ‘martyrs’ who stayed behind in LegCo.”

“This video has a lot of views.”

“Pui-man, the above. Lai.”

Chan Pui-man: “Received. Tomorrow’s newspaper will already feature extensive coverage of the young people’s voices regarding the storming and occupation of LegCo, including the interview with the ‘martyrs.’ We will continue with this coverage tomorrow.”

The prosecution then displayed messages between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, in which Cheung had sent Lai a photo showing protesters gathered outside LegCo. The prosecution pointed out that the protesters were attempting to break through LegCo’s glass doors to enter the building.

Cheung also sent a real-time text update on the situation inside LegCo:

• [15:10] Protesters have not yet broken into LegCo.
• [14:58] Riot police have arrived and formed a defensive line outside the Central Government Complex.
• [14:52] Protesters used a metal cart to break through the glass doors and are preparing to enter LegCo.
• [14:30] Lawmakers failed to stop the protesters, who continued ramming the doors with a metal cart while some shouted, “Keep going!”

The prosecution asked if Lai was aware of the situation on the ground. Lai confirmed that he was.

The prosecution then highlighted Lai’s earlier message:

“Nick, very well done. The young people storming LegCo weighs heavily on my heart. What do you think the pro-democracy camp should do to ensure the movement can continue? Fortunately, the public seems to have some understanding toward the young people storming LegCo, so the damage may not be too severe. What do you think?”

The prosecution asked if Lai was concerned about the aftermath of the incident and how the movement could continue. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked about Lai’s message:

“Fortunately, the public seems to have some understanding toward the young people storming LegCo, so the damage may not be too severe. What do you think?”

Lai confirmed that at the time, he did not want the incident to negatively impact the movement.

Regarding the message:

“This young father spoke very well—it will be inspiring for many people.”

“This is an interview with one of the four ‘martyrs’ who stayed behind in LegCo.”

Lai stated that these messages were written by Cheung Chi-wai and that he had merely forwarded them to Chan Pui-man.

The prosecution then displayed another exchange between Lai and Chan Pui-man on the same day:

Lai: “Yes, we must continue. Tomorrow, should we focus on amplifying the voices of young people and try to win public understanding and support for them, so they can be vindicated?”

Chan Pui-man: “Of course, some people will not agree with storming LegCo, but that doesn’t mean they will start supporting Carrie Lam. We will continue our coverage tomorrow.”

Lai: “Go all out in making the young people’s voices heard and winning them sympathy, making those who criticize them reflect on their stance.”

“We don’t need to concern ourselves with those who disagree. We stand with the young people and must help society understand their grievances and struggles so they can be vindicated and the movement can continue. If they are vindicated, the movement has a chance to carry on. Although we hope they will learn from this and adopt more peaceful means in the future.”

The prosecution asked Lai what he meant by “vindicating” the protesters. Lai replied that he felt they had done something serious and therefore wanted to vindicate them.

The prosecution then pressed him, asking whether he still wanted the public to understand the protesters despite their use of violence. Lai responded that he hoped the public would understand them to avoid harming the movement.

The prosecution further asked if Lai wanted the movement to continue. Lai confirmed this.

Finally, the prosecution pointed to Lai’s instruction to “go all out in making the young people’s voices heard and winning them sympathy, making those who criticize them reflect on their stance.” They suggested that this was similar to his earlier directive to Chan Pui-man to “maximize the impact” of Anson Chan’s meeting with Mike Pence. The prosecution asked if this was an editorial directive.

Lai confirmed that it was.

12:26 Lai Confirms Issuing Editorial Directives on Two Incidents

The prosecution questioned Lai about his relationship with Apple Daily. They cited Lai’s testimony in which he admitted to giving editorial directives on two occasions. Lai confirmed this, stating that the incidents included news coverage of Anson Chan’s meeting with then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and the “ One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign.

The prosecution presented a conversation from March 23, 2019, between Lai and former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung. In this exchange, Lai forwarded Cheung a report from former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong, James Cunningham, detailing a meeting between Anson Chan and James Cunningham. The report noted that:

• Anson Chan was highly concerned about the extradition bill and was fully aware of the need to defeat it.
• Cunningham suggested that when Chan visited Capitol Hill and the National Security Council, she should focus on discussing this issue.

The report also mentioned that Anson Chan would travel with Dennis Kwok and Charles Mok, whom she described as her “successors.”

Cheung Kim-hung replied to Lai: “Boss, understood.”

The prosecution then stated that Lai had also forwarded Cunningham’s report to Chan Pui-man and added that he had also sent it to Ryan Law Wai-kwong.

The prosecution presented Lai’s conversation with Chan Pui-man, where he wrote:

“She met Pence!”
“Big news. Use it to maximum effect.”

Lai also sent Chan Pui-man Cunningham’s report on Anson Chan’s meeting, stating:

“Her emphasis in the meeting is on the extradition bill. This is what James Cunningham told me when they had a meeting earlier. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asserted that because Lai had received Cunningham’s recommendations, he directed Chan Pui-man to “use it to maximum effect”, which constituted an editorial directive. Lai responded, “You can call it an editorial directive.”

The prosecution further asked whether the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign was also an editorial directive. Lai agreed.

12:13 Lai Denies Transferring Offshore Company to Chan as a Reward, Says It Was to Help Open a Bank Account

The prosecution displayed the homepage of Apple Daily’s Twitter account, which stated: “Founded by @JimmyLaiApple in 1995.” Lai acknowledged knowing that Apple Daily had a Twitter account but stated that he never looked at it.

Regarding Lai’s relationship with Chan Tsz-wah, the prosecution noted that Chan had testified that Lai transferred ownership of his offshore company LACOCK, registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), to him. Lai confirmed the transfer. However, when the prosecution stated that Chan claimed this was a reward from Lai, Lai denied it. He explained that Chan had told Mark Simon he was unable to open a bank account and had asked Simon for help. Lai said he had a company under his name that could be transferred to Chan to assist him.

Lai reiterated that Chan had never done anything for him, whereas he had done many things for Chan.

The prosecution asked whether the bank account transfer was a reward for Chan’s promotional work. Lai denied this, stating that promotional work was their job and that he was unaware of Chan’s involvement in international lobbying efforts.

The prosecution outlined the case, stating that in January 2020, Lai at least agreed with Mark Simon, Chan, and Finn Lau (Lam Chau) in requesting foreign governments to impose sanctions and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai disagreed, stating he was unaware of such activities.

The prosecution then claimed that from the enactment of the National Security Law (NSL) until February 15, 2021, Lai and Chan had agreed to continue pushing for sanctions. Lai denied this, stating that he had no such agreement with Chan.

The prosecution asserted that between January 2020 and February 2021, SWHK (Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong) engaged in international lobbying efforts, including urging sanctions and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai denied knowing anything about this.

The prosecution asked if Lai knew that Andy Li (Li Yu-hin) and Finn Lau were members of SWHK. Lai responded that he did not and that he had only learned in court that Andy Li was “Andy Li.”

The prosecution stated that between June 2020 and February 2021, IPAC (Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China) engaged in international lobbying, including requesting sanctions and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai replied, “I don’t even know IPAC, so how can I agree or disagree?”

The prosecution then alleged that in June or July 2020, Lai had asked Chan to join SWHK’s U.S.-focused Telegram group. Lai denied this, stating, “That is wrong.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was aware that Chan had successfully joined the U.S. Telegram group. Lai responded that he did not know and that Chan had fabricated the claim.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai and Chan last met on June 16, 2020, and that at no point during that meeting did Lai tell Chan not to push for sanctions or hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai responded that he had never asked Chan to advocate for such actions.

Finally, the prosecution asked whether Lai had ever instructed Chan not to cooperate with Mark Simon, Andy Li, or other SWHK members in international lobbying efforts. Lai responded:

“They never worked together for international lobbying, so there’s no case for me to ask them not to.”

11:23 Break

10:57 Lai Denies Knowledge of U.S. ‘Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act’ and Other Bills

The prosecution questioned Lai about the role of his assistant, Mark Simon. They referred to Lai’s previous testimony that Simon and Chan Tsz-wah were not friends. The prosecution also revisited a HK$30,000 deposit made to Chan in August 2019, to which Lai had testified that Mark Simon had no reason to make the deposit in a personal capacity and that the money originally belonged to Lai. At the time, Chan was organizing a newspaper exhibition.

The prosecution further pointed out that Lai had previously stated that Mark Simon did not need his approval to transfer funds to Chan, even if the amount was in the millions.

The prosecution asked whether Lai trusted Mark Simon regardless of the tasks he carried out on Lai’s behalf. Lai confirmed this. The prosecution then asked whether Mark Simon had communicated with Chan Tsz-wah on Lai’s behalf, both before and after the enactment of the National Security Law. Lai confirmed this as well.

The prosecution presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Simon Lee from July 17, 2020, in which Lai wrote:

“This move is good wherewithal to our resistance movement. Thank you former consul generals! Former US top envoys call for Washington to grant HongKongers political asylum.”

Lai also included a link to an Apple Daily English-language article with the same headline.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had read Apple Daily at the time. Lai said he had, but he could not recall whether he had read it thoroughly.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Lai appeared to be paying attention to the U.S. response to the National Security Law, as indicated by his message referring to it as a “good tactic.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had messaged Simon Lee with the intent of having him post about it on Twitter. Lai confirmed this. The court then displayed the linked article, titled:

“Former US top envoys call for Washington to grant Hongkongers political asylum.”

The prosecution pointed out that the wording of the article matched Lai’s message and asked whether he had read the article. Lai responded that he generally did not read the English-language version and that he may have asked his secretary to find the corresponding English version and forward it to Simon Lee.

The prosecution then cited the article’s reference to the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act and the Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act and asked whether Lai had noticed these two bills at the time. Lai replied that he had not read the article in detail, had only seen the Chinese version, and was unaware of the bills’ names.

The prosecution insisted that Lai must have known about the two bills. Lai reiterated that he was not particularly sensitive to their names.

Judge Lee asked whether Lai was aware of U.S. executive orders. Lai replied that he was familiar with executive orders but not specific bills.

The prosecution challenged Lai, stating that he had read the English version of the article. Lai replied that he rarely did so, usually referring to the Chinese version instead.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had previously testified that Apple Daily’s English section was intended to garner international support and raise awareness about the impending National Security Law. They questioned whether Lai’s refusal to read English content undermined the effectiveness of spreading the message abroad. Lai replied that he did not need to read the English version himself.

The prosecution then asked if Lai knew the contents of the two bills. Lai denied having such knowledge.

Referring to the two bills, the prosecution presented a tweet from Lai’s account on July 17, 2020, which stated:

“#HongKong #SafeHaborAct and #PeopleFreedomandChoiceAct are good wherewithal to our resistance movement. Salute to former CGs and State Dept staff for caring about this place we call home.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had read the tweet after it was posted. Lai said he did not remember and that he generally did not follow up on posts.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai agreed with the content of the tweet. Lai responded that he was responsible for its content.

Finally, the prosecution asked whether Lai supported the bills. Lai stated that if the tweet expressed support for them, then he agreed with it.

10:40 Lai Aware of “Blue Words” in Twitter Posts but Did Not Notice Hashtags

The prosecution presented a tweet by Lai from August 21, 2020, in which he retweeted an Apple Daily post referencing then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s praise of his bravery. The tweet read:

“President @RealDonaldTrump calls me a brave man. I am flattered. But I am not brave enough to stand against the whole world like #Xi. I only #StandWithHongKong #StandWithTaiwan.”

Lai stated that he must have seen the tweet at the time but did not notice the attached content or the “#StandWithHongKong” hashtag.

The prosecution then presented another tweet from May 22, 2020, in which Lai wrote:

“Other leaders pay lip service to liberty and human rights but remain silent. The indifference is as cynical as it’s despicable. #StandWithHongKong.”

Two days later, Lai tweeted:

“Although Switzerland is small, it is a nation of brave and righteous people. On the contrary, the influence of the other bigger European countries is cynical and despicable. Thank you @SwissMFA for #StandWithHongKong.”

The prosecution pointed out that all these tweets contained the hashtag #StandWithHongKong, yet Lai insisted he had never noticed the hashtag.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned Lai, noting that he had testified that he was not interested in foreign political figures’ reactions to the National Security Law. However, the two tweets presented both criticized foreign countries for their indifference to Hong Kong’s situation. Lai responded that Simon Lee had written the tweets and clarified that he never said he was uninterested—rather, he simply had not thought about these issues.

Judge Lee questioned how Lai could have posted such tweets criticizing foreign reactions if he had never considered those reactions. Lai reiterated that the tweets were written by Simon Lee. Judge Lee then asked whether this meant Simon Lee’s views differed from Lai’s. Lai replied that this did not mean he had no interest—only that he had not actively thought about it at the time.

The prosecution then asked if Lai was now admitting to being interested in foreign reactions. Lai responded that he had never claimed to be either interested or uninterested, only that he had not given it much thought at the time. The prosecution then pressed Lai, reiterating that he had consistently sought to prevent the enactment of the National Security Law and mitigate its impact. Lai agreed but maintained that he had not specifically considered how others reacted to the law.

The prosecution argued that Lai was highly interested in foreign reactions to the National Security Law, had been closely monitoring these reactions, and was aware of the content posted on his Twitter account. Lai repeatedly responded, “I did not think much about it.”

The prosecution then presented another tweet by Lai from May 23, 2020:

“Under CCP’s clampdown, HK people have two choices: emigrate or stay to fight to the end. I’ll fight to the end. HK is my home. We are not frightened. #FightForFreedom #StandWithHongKong.”

A tweet from June 16, 2020, read:

“#HK has always been a city of immigrants. I am one of those who fled #CCPChina and found this place my home. It is sad to see #HKers once again become refugees and forced to leave their homes. #FightforFreedom #StandWithHongKong.”

Another tweet from July 12, 2020, stated:

“More than 420,000 voted. We #HKers are determined to win 35+ in the September LegCo election. We will take back control of our lives. #FightforFreedom #StandWithHongKong.”

Lai reiterated that he had not paid attention to the hashtags in these tweets, claiming that he first learned about them in court. However, he did recall seeing “blue words” in the tweets.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai was aware that some text in his tweets appeared in blue while others were black. Lai responded that he understood black text to be the main content but had no interest in knowing what the blue text represented.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had ever questioned Simon Lee about why he included “blue words” in the tweets. Lai stated that he had never asked.

The prosecution then suggested that Lai never asked because he already knew what the blue text represented. Lai denied this claim.

Additionally, Judge D’Almada Remedios pointed out that in some retweeted Apple Daily posts, Lai’s Twitter handle @JimmyLaiApple was mentioned. Lai stated that he had not noticed this.

10:25 Lai Followed IPAC on Twitter; Lai: Arranged by Simon Lee, Unaware of Followed Accounts

The prosecution questioned whether Lai communicated with Simon Lee via Signal after the enactment of the National Security Law. Lai stated that he did not remember, adding that even if they had, it was infrequent. The prosecution then asked whether Simon Lee continued writing Lai’s Twitter posts after the National Security Law took effect. Lai confirmed this but insisted it did not mean they communicated via Signal, reiterating that he did not remember.

The prosecution presented a Signal message from Lai’s assistant, Mark Simon, dated July 10, 2020, in which Simon wrote to Lai:

“I just spoke with Simon, he will continue doing Twitter for you. We will dismiss the other guys, he just asked that we communicate over signal, as that is more secure.”

Lai replied:

“OK. I’ll send my things through Signal. Please ask him to set it up. Thanks. Jimmy.”

The prosecution asked Lai who the “other guys” mentioned in the message referred to. Lai responded that he did not know. The prosecution then stated that Simon Lee had been managing Lai’s Twitter account and that Lai had been sending information through Signal. Lai agreed.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s Twitter account followed Luke de Pulford and IPAC, suggesting that after the National Security Law took effect, Lai was eager to learn how other organizations were reacting to it. Lai denied having such thoughts.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was interested in foreign figures’ reactions to the National Security Law. Lai responded that he had not considered it. When pressed further about whether he was interested, Lai said that because he had not thought about it, he had no particular interest or disinterest. When asked whether he was interested in how foreign politicians viewed the National Security Law, Lai again stated that he had not given it any thought.

The prosecution asserted that Lai had always wanted to prevent the enactment of the National Security Law and minimize its impact. Lai agreed. The prosecution then suggested that, naturally, Lai would have wanted to know how others reacted to it. Lai responded that he had not considered this.

The prosecution asked whether Lai read posts from the accounts he followed on Twitter. Lai replied that Simon Lee was the one managing the follows, and he did not know which accounts had been followed. The prosecution asked whether Lai was uninterested in the accounts he followed. Lai responded that he was not interested.

The prosecution then asked whether, at the time of his arrest, Lai’s phone had been seized by the police and was already logged into Twitter. Lai agreed but stated that he did not frequently check Twitter.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai’s Twitter notifications were enabled. Lai stated that he did not know how to enable notifications, so he was certain they were not turned on.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether Lai had previously said he would ask his assistant, Julie, for help. Lai responded that, in this case, he had not unless he specifically instructed her to assist.

The prosecution noted that Lai had previously testified that Simon Lee added hashtags to his tweets and asked whether Lai was aware that his tweets frequently included the hashtag #StandWithHongKong. Lai stated that he had not noticed and did not read hashtags.

10:05 Prosecution Questions Lai’s Knowledge of IPAC’s Ties to “Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong”; Lai Reiterates Lack of Awareness

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai about his relationship with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). The prosecution presented a tweet by Lai from July 22, 2020, in which he retweeted an IPAC post that stated:

“Today’s announcement that the UK will be suspending its extradition treaty with Hong Kong was welcomed by #IPAC members in the House of Commons. SNP MP @AlynSmith pressed for further action, with Magnitsky sanctions to be itself against perpetrators of abuses in XiJinping”

Lai’s retweet included his own comment:

“The civilized world cannot trust #CCP. Last year #HKers resisted the #ExtraditionLaw, #NationalSecurityLaw ended #1C2S and so the world is ending their extradition arrangements with #HongKong.”

The prosecution referenced Lai’s earlier testimony, in which he claimed that even if a tweet was written by his “apprentice” Simon Lee, he would still glance over it. Lai responded that this was possible but that he did not remember. The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously said he “might glance at it,” whereas now he was saying he would definitely review it. Lai then replied, “OK.”

The prosecution asked if Lai supported the UK’s decision to suspend its extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Lai stated that he did not write the tweet and had not seen the attached IPAC post.

The prosecution questioned whether, if Lai had glanced at the tweet, he would have also seen the attachment. Lai claimed he had not seen the attachment and that he does not look at attachments. The prosecution then asked whether Lai agreed with the content of all his tweets, even those related to IPAC. Lai affirmed that even if Simon Lee had written them, he would still agree with the content.

The prosecution pointed out that the tweet stated, “The civilized world cannot trust the CCP” and “The world (after the implementation of the National Security Law) is ending its extradition arrangements with Hong Kong.” They asked whether Lai supported these statements. Lai agreed. The prosecution then asked whether this was something he advocated. Lai replied that he would not describe it as advocacy but acknowledged responsibility for the tweet and agreed with the statement.

The prosecution asked whether, after seeing the tweet, Lai instructed Simon Lee to delete it. Lai said he did not.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had instructed Luke de Pulford, the founder of IPAC, to stop advocating for suspending Hong Kong’s extradition treaties. Lai responded that he had no connection with de Pulford and could not instruct him to do anything. The prosecution also asked whether Lai had told Chan Tsz-wah not to participate in IPAC’s work. Lai stated that at the time, he was unaware of Chan’s involvement with IPAC.

The prosecution asserted that Lai was aware of IPAC’s establishment at the time, but Lai disagreed. The prosecution then claimed that Lai knew about IPAC’s objectives, had supported IPAC through prominent coverage in Apple Daily and Twitter posts, and was aware of IPAC’s connections with “SWHK” (Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong). Lai denied all these claims. The prosecution suggested that Lai was denying these facts in court to distance himself from IPAC, but Lai denied this, reiterating that he had never engaged with IPAC or paid attention to it.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why Simon Lee, who had left Hong Kong due to concerns over the National Security Law, would write such a tweet. Lai responded that Simon Lee was not in Hong Kong at the time and was not in danger. Judge Lee then asked whether Lai had instructed Simon Lee not to violate the National Security Law. Lai agreed. Judge Lee further inquired whether Lai believed the tweet violated the National Security Law, to which Lai responded that he did not.

Following up on Judge Lee’s questions, the prosecution argued that even though Simon Lee was outside Hong Kong, he could still publish tweets violating the National Security Law. Lai disagreed, adding that Simon Lee was initially reluctant to continue writing tweets after leaving Hong Kong. The prosecution suggested that Simon Lee could post anything he wanted, even content that violated the National Security Law. Lai responded that he had never made such a statement. The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with the content of his tweets. Lai replied that he was responsible for them.

10:03 Court in Session

The Witness