Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai denied advocating for technological sanctions against China during his ongoing trial on charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.”

The trial entered its 142nd day Monday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court, marking Lai’s 50th day of testimony and the prosecution’s 24th day of cross-examination. Lai said he was not calling for sanctions but merely presenting facts, noting that the sanctions were already in place at the time.

Last week, prosecutors referenced Lai’s remarks on his “Live Chat” program, asking whether they implied he would continue his actions and that Apple Daily would keep operating despite the risks of violating the National Security Law. Lai responded that the law’s red lines were unclear, admitting he would “push the boundaries” and take risks in legal gray areas. However, he emphasized that if an action was clearly illegal, he “would not be stupid enough to do it.”

The case is being heard by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law: Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang.

The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hong, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcript

15:34 Court Adjourns

15:22 Defense Expected to Take One Day for Re-Examination; Prosecution Estimates Six Weeks for Closing Arguments Preparation

Defense counsel Steven Kwan stated that there were certain areas requiring re-examination and requested that the trial be adjourned until Wednesday, the 5th, with the re-examination expected to take one day. He also noted that the defense had obtained additional information from public sources and compiled it into documents, including materials to counter the prosecution’s claim that some of Lai’s articles lacked supporting evidence. The defense intended to present this evidence and planned to disclose it to the prosecution before re-examination, allowing the prosecution to review it the following day.

Kwan further stated that the defense would submit agreed facts on public assemblies and demonstrations, a written statement from an expert witness on WhatsApp’s functionalities, and written statements related to certain events from 2019 to 2020—all of which were unlikely to be disputed.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired whether the defense had any additional witnesses. The defense confirmed that there were none.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether the defense’s case could be completed within the week. Kwan responded that it should be concluded by Thursday.

Judge Lee also asked whether the prosecution possessed the article Lai had allegedly submitted to The Wall Street Journal earlier in the trial. The prosecution responded that they did not, and the defense also confirmed that they did not have it.

Additionally, Judge Toh asked both parties how much time they would need to prepare closing arguments. Senior defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hong stated that they would try to avoid delivering closing arguments in mid-July, as both the prosecution and defense were involved in another case.

Court records show that the Democratic primary case involving 47 defendants is scheduled for appeal hearings on convictions and/or sentencing, and the Department of Justice’s appeal against the acquittal of Lawrence Lau Wai-chung is set to begin on July 14, with proceedings expected to last ten days.

Judge Toh clarified that the court was only inquiring about the time required for closing arguments and remarked that “Easter is usually a holiday.”

The prosecution stated that it was uncertain whether closing arguments would extend into July but hoped that if both sides required six weeks for preparation, the case could be concluded by June.

15:09 Lai Denies All Prosecution Allegations; Cross-Examination Concludes

The prosecution outlined the charges against Lai, alleging that between April 1, 2019, and June 24, 2021, he conspired with three Apple Daily-related companies and individuals including Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Ryan Law Wai-kwong, Lam Man-chung, Fung Wai-kong, Yeung Ching-kee, Mark Simon, Cheung Chi-wai, and Simon Lee to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display, or reproduce seditious publications, which included 161 articles related to the case.

The prosecution further alleged that through these 161 articles, Lai and the aforementioned individuals intended to incite hatred, contempt, or discontent against the central or Hong Kong government; provoke unlawful attempts to alter matters legally established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR); incite hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction with Hong Kong’s judiciary and administration; and encourage others to break the law. Lai firmly denied these accusations, calling them “totally rubbish.”

The prosecution then alleged that between July 1, 2020, and June 24, 2021, Lai conspired with the same Apple Daily executives to solicit foreign institutions, organizations, or individuals to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against Hong Kong or the People’s Republic of China. Lai denied the allegation.

The prosecution claimed that Lai had an agreement with these individuals. Lai interrupted, demanding, “Where is the agreement?” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping instructed Lai to listen to the question before responding.

The prosecution alleged that the agreement among Lai and Apple Daily executives to request foreign sanctions and hostile actions was formed in March or April 2019 and continued until June 24, 2021. Lai countered, “Where is the evidence of this agreement? You cannot fabricate it.”

Judge Esther Toh cited Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang, reminding Lai that he only needed to respond “agree” or “disagree” to avoid “staying here until next year.” Lai responded that he disagreed and that no such agreement existed.

Regarding the charge of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, the prosecution alleged that between July 1, 2020, and February 15, 2021, Lai conspired with Chan Tsz-wah, Mark Simon, Andy Li, Finn Lau, Luke de Pulford (founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, IPAC), Japanese House of Representatives member Shiori Yamao, and British financier Bill Browder to request foreign institutions or individuals to impose sanctions, blockades, or other hostile actions against Hong Kong or China.

Lai stated, “I do not know Andy Li.” The prosecution pressed whether he agreed or disagreed with the allegation. Lai disagreed, adding, “You cannot fabricate things.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang reminded Lai that his defense counsel would address these points during closing arguments. The prosecution asked whether the agreement between Lai and Chan Tsz-wah was formed in January 2020. Lai denied it, stating that no agreement existed and that the prosecution was fabricating accusations.

Judge Lee then questioned why the charge of conspiracy to publish seditious publications included Simon Lee, noting that Simon Lee had not written any articles. He asked whether the prosecution was counting Twitter posts among the 161 articles. The prosecution responded that Twitter posts were not part of the 161 articles but were related to Lai’s mindset. Judge Lee stated that this issue would be addressed in closing arguments, specifically regarding why Simon Lee was implicated in the conspiracy to publish seditious materials. The prosecution confirmed that they would address this point later.

The prosecution concluded the cross-examination, saying, “Thank you, Mr. Lai.” Lai also responded, “Thank you.”

15:00 Prosecution Claims Ngan Shun-kau’s Article Incited Hostility Against China; Lai Disagrees

The prosecution presented a June 19, 2021 Apple Daily opinion article written by Ngan Shun-kau (pen name: Fong Yuan) titled “The U.S. Drives a Wedge Between China and Russia, the CCP Suffers Silently.” The article stated:

“In contrast, the CCP adheres to communist ideology, operates under an authoritarian dictatorship, possesses the vanity of demanding global submission, and harbors ambitions of world domination. The CCP aims to erode and assimilate the Western democratic bloc through its one-party dictatorship model. While both China and Russia pose threats to Western democracies, their nature and magnitude are entirely different. Russia’s current national strength cannot compare to that of the CCP. From the U.S. perspective, setting Russia aside and focusing solely on dealing with the CCP is the most cost-effective approach.
…
Biden’s effort to secure Putin’s neutrality is already half the battle won. Moving forward, if Western powers unite to pressure the CCP into following international rules and impose economic and technological blockades, the CCP will eventually be unable to sustain itself. In the end, the CCP will have no choice but to either submit or fight to the death.”

The prosecution asked whether this Apple Daily article represented the newspaper’s stance. Lai responded that this was not necessarily the case, explaining that Ngan Shun-kau wrote under his own pen name and that Apple Daily merely published his article. While the newspaper may agree with the opinion, Lai reiterated that he was not involved in editorial decisions.

The prosecution asked whether the article reflected Apple Daily‘s stance. Lai replied that he was not responsible for editorial matters and would not say so. The prosecution challenged this, pointing out that Lai was the chairman of the media group. Lai confirmed this but emphasized that he was not responsible for deciding which articles were published.

The prosecution then cited the passage:

“Biden’s effort to secure Putin’s neutrality is already half the battle won. Moving forward, if Western powers unite to pressure the CCP into following international rules and impose economic and technological blockades, the CCP will eventually be unable to sustain itself. In the end, the CCP will have no choice but to either submit or fight to the death.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with the author’s view. Lai denied this. The prosecution pressed further, noting that Lai had previously mentioned “technology embargoes” in Live Chat. Lai responded that the two issues were different.

The prosecution questioned whether both ideas were essentially the same. Lai insisted that he was expressing his personal opinions, which did not align with Ngan Shun-kau’s views.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked how Lai’s views differed from Ngan Shun-kau’s statements. Lai replied that he never mentioned “the only options are submission or fighting to the death.”

The prosecution further asked whether Lai had previously written in his column:

“We have eliminated slavery, why not tyranny!”

Lai confirmed that he had, clarifying that he was referring to the CCP’s tyranny, not the CCP itself.

The prosecution then alleged that Lai knew the article would incite hatred, contempt, and discontent against the Hong Kong government and the central government, and that it would provoke Hong Kong residents to seek unlawful means to change policies legally enacted in the city while inciting unlawful behavior and encouraging foreign hostility toward China.

Lai disagreed, stating that the article was not written by him and had nothing to do with him.

14:40 Prosecution Claims Lai Used Articles to Urge Biden to Maintain a Tough China Policy

The prosecution presented Lai’s November 29, 2020, article, “Encircling China: Biden Caught in a Dilemma”, which stated:

“In this U.S. presidential election, the people who most strongly supported Trump’s re-election were likely Hongkongers and Taiwanese. The reason is simple: we all face suppression from the CCP and share a common enemy. Trump’s hardline stance against the CCP felt like he was standing up for us, giving us a sense of security. Trump revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status, eliminating the CCP’s emergency backdoor to the U.S. in case of a conflict, and weakening its flexibility in trade, diplomacy, and politics.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai advocated for the continued revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in his article. Lai denied this, stating that he was only describing the impact of the revocation.

The prosecution further pointed out that Lai emphasized the negative impact of the revocation. Lai confirmed that he was discussing the negative impact, but not advocating for it—he was merely stating facts.

The article also mentioned that the revocation of Hong Kong’s special trade status “somewhat constrained the CCP from wantonly suppressing Hongkongers, offering a glimmer of hope to those suffocating under the National Security Law, as if someone was standing up for them.” Lai stated that he was simply expressing his opinion.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai felt that someone was “standing up” for him. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution presented the English version of the article, titled “Biden Duty-Bound to Lead the Free World’s Containment of China.” Lai stated that he had not read the English version, as his staff translated it from his original article.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai believed the English title accurately conveyed his meaning. Lai suggested that “Biden’s Attitude Between a Rock and a Hard Place” would have been more appropriate.

The prosecution asked whether the existing English title conveyed a similar meaning to his original article. Lai agreed. Judge Lee then asked whether the Chinese title was stronger in tone. Lai noted that the English version included “lead the free world’s containment of China”, while the Chinese version did not. He confirmed that he personally chose the Chinese title.

The prosecution sought to discuss the English version’s content, but Judge Lee raised concerns, noting that Lai did not translate it himself and that the prosecution must prove that Lai agreed with the English version’s wording before questioning him about it.

The prosecution referenced a passage in the English version:

“Some believe Biden, a Democrat, will pay attention to human rights issues, therefore, he will continue to lend support to the resistance movement in Hong Kong. You must bear in mind politicians are always good at paying lip service. In reality, only actions matters. Let us have our fingers crossed that Biden will insist on the CCP”

The prosecution compared this with the Chinese version, which stated:

“Some say Biden values human rights more than Trump and will be more concerned about Hongkongers’ resistance movement. Such verbal assurances may be true, but politicians always say one thing and do another—actions are what truly matter. If Biden can use Hong Kong’s rule of law, freedom, and the human rights situation in Xinjiang as preconditions in trade negotiations with China, it would be a great achievement.”

The prosecution asked whether the English version accurately reflected Lai’s original Chinese article. Lai confirmed that it did.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai used his article to urge Biden to maintain Trump’s tough China policy. Lai responded that he hoped so.

The prosecution further suggested that even after the implementation of the National Security Law, Lai was still calling on foreign countries to impose blockades and hostile measures against China and Hong Kong. Lai disagreed, stating that he did not mention sanctions and only wanted foreign countries to link human rights and freedom in Hong Kong with agreements made with China.

14:33 Prosecution: Lai Wanted the U.S. to Continue Revoking Hong Kong’s Special Status; Lai: I Did Not Advocate, Only Speculated

The prosecution continued questioning Lai on the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status, citing his remarks from the July 17, 2020, episode of Live Chat. Lai stated:

“When I come to think about it more. Maybe the US is prepared eventually to be decoupling with China. So if they want to decouple with China to close the window, which is Hong Kong to the world, is finance commerce and technology, maybe this is a preparation they’re doing to make China realize that if the decoupling happen and Hong Kong’s outlet to the world is close. They may force China to come to terms with the demands easiest. So I just think that maybe this is the long term plan of the US otherwise the revoke of the special status of Hong Kong is meaningless now with the National Security Law.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was emphasizing a “long-term plan” in the interview. Lai responded that this was his speculation, noting that he used the word “maybe.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai hoped for this situation to occur. Lai replied that he was only speculating, not expressing a desire.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted the U.S. to close Hong Kong as China’s window to the world, forcing China to submit to U.S. demands. Lai stated that he was only analyzing the situation and speculating on why the U.S. revoked Hong Kong’s special status.

The prosecution further asked whether Lai wanted the U.S. to continue revoking Hong Kong’s special status. Lai responded that he never stated that he wanted it to continue.

The prosecution pressed on, asking whether Lai wanted the U.S. to revoke Hong Kong’s special status at that time. Lai denied this, stating that he never said so.

The prosecution alleged that Lai was advocating for the continued revocation of Hong Kong’s special status. Lai denied this, emphasizing that he was not advocating for anything but merely presenting his personal speculation.

12:47 Lunch

12:30 Lai Confirms He Hoped the U.S. Would Revoke Hong Kong’s Special Status to Pressure China into Compliance

The prosecution presented a conversation between Lai and Mark Simon on July 15, 2020. In the exchange, Mark Simon relayed a question from Mary Kissel, asking:

“Jimmy this is a question from Mary as they are a bit confused, as some press reports had, do you saying that you would prefer US not break all ties with Hong Kong.”

Lai responded to Mark Simon, expressing his thoughts on the U.S. revoking Hong Kong’s special status:

“I said that it’s not necessary to revoke the special status of HK because with national security law HK is finished anyway. The point is not HK but China. Sanction China as to stop it from clamping down on HK. But after I thought about it I think they’re right to revoke HK’s special status, because once US and China decoupled HK would be a way out for China. to close this outlet of China would force it to come to term easier to demands of US.”

The prosecution asked whether “they” in “they’re right to revoke HK’s special status” referred to the U.S. government. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai supported the U.S. revoking Hong Kong’s special status. Lai responded that Trump had already revoked it.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai personally supported the revocation. Lai stated that he agreed with it but did not actively support it, as the measure had already been implemented.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted the U.S. government to continue enforcing the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status. Lai responded that the measure had already been implemented, questioning, “How can it continue?”

The prosecution pointed out that the U.S. government reviews its policies annually and asked whether Lai wanted the revocation to remain in place. Lai replied that he had only considered the immediate situation at the time and had not thought about the future.

The prosecution claimed that Lai supported the continued revocation of Hong Kong’s special status. Lai countered, “Where did I say ‘continue’?” The prosecution insisted that this was implied in the nature of the message. Lai again challenged, “Where?”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping referenced Lai’s statement:

“Once US and China decoupled HK would be a way out for China. to close this outlet of China would force it to come to term easier to demands of US”

Lai reiterated that he had not stated that he wanted the revocation to continue, emphasizing that the measure had already been implemented at the time.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai saw the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status as a tool to force China into an agreement with the U.S.. Lai agreed but stressed that it would make reaching an agreement “easier.”

Judge Lee further questioned whether Lai believed that if China continued to resist U.S. demands, Hong Kong’s special status should not be reinstated and should remain revoked. Lai responded, “I didn’t say that, but it could be implied.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s ultimate goal was to confront China by “closing China’s outlet.” Lai denied this.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s goal was to sanction China to stop its suppression of Hong Kong. Lai denied this as well.

The prosecution further pressed, asking whether Lai had directly urged the U.S. to sanction China via Mark Simon. Lai denied this.

The prosecution accused Lai of using his messages to push the U.S. government to sanction China and initiate hostile actions against both China and Hong Kong. Lai denied this entirely.

The prosecution suggested that Lai was sacrificing the interests of both China and Hong Kong, implying that his actions were not in pursuit of Hong Kong’s interests but rather in pursuit of U.S. interests. Lai denied all the accusations.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was fighting for the U.S. against its “enemy camp”—referring to the CCP or China. Lai responded that his fight was for Hong Kong’s freedom because Hong Kong and the U.S. shared the same values—he was fighting for Hong Kong, not for the U.S.

The prosecution asked whether Lai was aware of the provisions of the National Security Law (NSL). Lai confirmed that he was.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was aware of the offense of collusion under the NSL. Lai stated that his messages did not involve collusion.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had previously acknowledged that speaking with foreign entities could be considered a “serious crime.” They then asked whether Lai was attempting to convey messages to Mary Kissel through Mark Simon.

Lai replied that Mary Kissel had asked him a question, and he was merely answering it.

The prosecution argued that Lai was not as cautious as he claimed. Lai countered that he was simply responding to a question.

The prosecution concluded by stating that their cross-examination was nearing completion but that some additional case details would be addressed after the lunch break.

12:10 Article Mentions “Eliminating Tyranny” – Lai Confirms It Refers to CCP Tyranny

The prosecution continued to press Lai on whether he was advocating for linking trade issues with China-related issues. Lai reiterated that he was not advocating for sanctions, stating that sanctions had already been implemented at the time.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had discussed this issue both in the “Live Chat” program and in his articles. Lai confirmed that he had mentioned it but stressed that he was not advocating for it.

The prosecution then pointed out that these ideas were similar to an article Lai wrote in October 2019. The prosecution cited a August 2019 article that Lai had sent to Wall Street Journal editor Bill McGurn, which was later forwarded to his aide Mark Simon. The prosecution highlighted a passage in the article that stated:

“We share Americans core values because of the legacy of our British colonial past. Hong Kong people are now fighting against China’s encroachment on our values and are also fighting as your partner in your in your new cold war with China.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was saying that Hong Kong was fighting alongside the United States. Lai responded that this was because Hongkongers and Americans share the same values.

The prosecution further cited another phrase from Lai’s article:

“We have eliminated slavery, why not tyranny!”

The prosecution asked whether Lai meant eliminating China. Lai denied this, stating that he was not referring to eliminating China, but eliminating tyranny.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked Lai to define “tyranny”. Lai responded that it referred to the way a government controls its people and that governments can relax restrictions to eliminate tyranny.

Judge Toh then asked whether “tyranny” referred to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Lai confirmed that it did.

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted the United States to eliminate the CCP. Lai denied this.

The prosecution pressed further, asking what “We” referred to in the phrase “We have eliminated slavery, why not tyranny!”. Lai stated that “We” referred to humanity.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai was calling on the United States to stop China from infringing on freedom. Lai confirmed this but emphasized that the embargo and trade agreements were already in effect at the time.

The prosecution presented a message from Mark Simon sent to Lai on August 8, 2019:

“I rarely suggest things. But for the Point you were making about the massive cost the communists are incurring to keep their regime in power through domestic security control is really a big, big, big point. Do you think you might want to make that point in one of your columns or someplace else. “

Lai responded:

“That’s great news. Time for America to stand up.”

The following day, Mark Simon sent another message, stating:

“Trump has pushed back. OAN is his news favorite channel.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai knew what “OAN” referred to. Lai stated that he did not know.

The prosecution then pointed out that Mark Simon was closely connected to the U.S. government and knew Trump’s favorite news channel. Lai replied that he was unaware of this.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned why Lai did not follow up on the message and yet responded with “That’s great news.” Lai explained that at the time, he did not think it was necessary to ask further questions.

10:59 Prosecution Claims Lai Linked Human Rights Issues to U.S.-China Trade; Lai: Hoped to Safeguard Hong Kong’s Rule of Law and Freedom

The prosecution cited a December 1, 2020, episode of Live Chat, in which Lai stated:

“I think it is very important of the Biden administration to realise that, to deal with the CCP, you have to deal with strength, not appeasement, not weakness.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted the Biden administration to follow Trump’s approach and adopt a tough stance on China. Lai responded that he was merely stating that all countries should deal with China from a position of strength.

The prosecution then asked why Lai believed strength, rather than weakness, could overpower China. Lai confirmed that having strength enables one to overpower the other party.

The prosecution further cited Lai’s statement from the same program:

“When they negotiate the trade deal with China, whatever deal they deal with China, they can link the human right issue as a precondition , especially the Hong Kong rule of law and the human right issue of the Uyghurs.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s remarks were hostile actions against China concerning Hong Kong. Lai denied this, stating that he believed human rights are inherent rights and that it was logical to consider human rights when foreign countries negotiated agreements with China.

The prosecution then referred to an interview Lai gave on Fox Business on the same day, where he told host Maria Bartiromo:

“I hope the Biden administration will attach human rights especially the rule of law and the freedom and also human rights in Xinjiang as the precondition of any negotiation they have with China. “

The prosecution argued that Lai was advocating the same idea again and accused him of urging the U.S. to pressure China into making human rights concessions during trade negotiations. Lai denied this, stating that his only concern was protecting Hong Kong’s freedom and rule of law.

The prosecution further pressed Lai, arguing that he was linking issues unrelated to trade with trade negotiations and that he wanted the U.S. to negotiate with China on these terms. Lai confirmed this.

10:34 Interview Mentioned “Dismemberment”; Lai Says It Refers to Differing Values, Not “National Division”

The prosecution presented the November 29, 2020 episode of the “Live Chat” program, in which Lai was interviewed by Nicholas Kristof, an American journalist. During the interview, Kristof asked:

“When the US speaks up for Jimmy Lai, when the US speaks up for Hong Kong, then we play into that narrative, and reinforce that most false narrative that is about Western dismemberment. So how do you see that? What is a useful role for America or Britain or other countries to play?”

Lai responded:

“I think that the narrative was not totally false because Hong Kong shares the same values as the free world, and we are beacon of this idea to China. If allowed to spread to China. It definitely can dismember the Chinese regime and that’s why they treat me the way they treat us, so aggressively clamping down on us.”

Lai further stated:

“It is very important for the world to know that we are actually fighting on the frontier with China, with the values that represent the whole western free world. If we fail here, that will be a defeat of the credibility of the Western World’s value system. And that’s why the world has to pay attention to us and make sure that your voice in support carries us to go on.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired about Lai’s statement that “this narrative was not totally false,” asking whether Lai agreed that some people were attempting to “dismember China.”

Lai explained that by “dismember,” he was referring to China’s failure to share the same values as the international community, rather than advocating for the physical division of the country.

Judge Lee further questioned whether “dismemberment” implied “the division of a country.” Lai responded:

“If they talk about separating China into pieces, that will be disintegration, not dismemberment.”

Lai reiterated that his statement was about China not sharing the same values as Hong Kong and the Western world.

The prosecution asked whether Lai supported Western efforts to dismember China. Lai denied this, stating that he did not support any Western attempt to break apart China, but rather argued that if China did not share the values of the free world, it would not be part of the international community. This, he explained, was why he said “the narrative was not totally false.”

Justice Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked whether, according to Lai’s argument, China had never been part of the international community. Lai responded that China is still viewed as a member of the global trade network.

The prosecution pressed him on why he did not mention this aspect in the interview. Lai replied:

“Because I was not asked in that kind of context.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai had advocated for linking trade agreements with human rights and the rule of law during U.S.-China negotiations. Lai agreed, stating “That would be very good if they could do that.” 

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang remarked that Lai’s statements seemed confusing. He pointed out that in the November 20, 2020, Live Chat interview, Lai stated that he was merely describing the situation and that the technology embargo had already been implemented. However, in the November 29, 2020, Live Chat, Lai expressed support for linking trade with Hong Kong and Xinjiang’s freedom movements.

Lai clarified that he did not mention “embargoes” in the November 29 interview and stated that trade and embargoes were separate issues.

The prosecution then asked:

“So, did you propose making Hong Kong’s freedom and human rights a pre-condition for U.S.-China trade negotiations?”

Lai responded that it was a “condition” or part of a “package.”

10:25 Prosecution Claims Lai Mentioned “Technology Embargo” Seven Times in Three Months

The prosecution cited an article by Lai published on December 6, 2020, titled “Moral Asphyxiation Leads to an Inevitable Explosion.” In the article, Lai wrote:

“When people’s living space is narrowed, and their imagination for survival is exhausted, they will rise up in resistance, redirecting their imagination toward protest. The creative power generated from resistance often fuels regime change. President Xi has embarked on a path of no return in restricting people’s freedom of thought and daily life. Electronic surveillance is pervasive, allowing the government to monitor citizens’ every move. The more detailed the surveillance, the narrower the people’s imagination, intensifying their sense of suffocation and ultimately leading to an explosion. With the help of overseas communication technology, this explosive force will transform into a force of speech. People will use digital information to counteract an authoritarian regime, which is the greatest fear of a dictator. When people fully utilize the internet to express opinions, unite, and build a collective resistance against the regime, authoritarian power will face challenges and move toward collapse.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was advocating for the collapse of the regime. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely analyzing the situation and confirming that these were his personal opinions.

The prosecution further cited the article, which stated:

“If the U.S. were to completely ban the export of technology and chips to China, it would severely impact its technological development and hinder its electronic surveillance capabilities. If opposition voices within China receive greater foreign technological support (which does not need to be based inside China), they would be able to bypass state surveillance and operate freely. Once the people have free access to information and tools to build consensus, they will be able to counterbalance the regime, leaving the dictator with no room to survive.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai’s reference to the “dictator” referred to Xi Jinping. Lai responded that he was referring to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The prosecution also questioned whether Lai was advocating for greater foreign technological support for opposition voices in China to help them bypass state surveillance. Lai confirmed that this was his opinion.

The prosecution challenged Lai, suggesting that he was advocating for the continuation of a technology embargo against China. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely making a hypothetical deduction. The prosecution pointed out that Lai explicitly mentioned “if the U.S. were to fully ban technology exports to China,” and argued that this implied he was proposing such a “comprehensive ban” on technology exports. Lai denied this, emphasizing that he used the conditional “if.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai supported the idea of a full ban. Lai responded that he was merely discussing the potential consequences of such a scenario. The prosecution pressed further, suggesting that Lai was highlighting the effectiveness and importance of technological sanctions against China. Lai denied advocating for sanctions, stating that he was simply discussing their possibility.

Finally, the prosecution argued that even after the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL), Lai continued to call for a technology embargo against China. Lai denied this, stating that a technology embargo was already in place at the time, and he had not called for its continuation. The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted China to face a complete technology ban. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely outlining a possible scenario.

The prosecution further pointed out that Lai mentioned the topic of “technology embargo” seven times within three months. Lai reiterated that the embargo was already in effect at the time, and he was simply analyzing the situation. The prosecution challenged Lai, suggesting that he was not merely stating facts. Lai denied this. The prosecution argued that by repeatedly discussing the negative impact of the technology embargo on China, Lai was, in fact, advocating for such measures. Lai denied this claim again, stressing that he was only analyzing the situation, as the embargo was already in place at the time.

10:10 Lai Denies Advocating for “Technology Embargo,” Claims He Was Only Analyzing the Situation

The prosecution continued questioning Lai regarding the topic of “technology embargo,” asking whether he advocated for imposing such an embargo on China. Lai denied the claim, stating that he merely described the facts, noting that an embargo was already in place at the time.

The prosecution then presented a transcript of a conversation between Lai and former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky on November 20, 2020. In the discussion, Sharansky stated:

“I do hope that American president will link the steps in technological cooperation with the fate of the Uyghurs in China, with the people of Hong Kong, with your personal fate and I hope you’ll be free⋯⋯It’s very important that the reaction of the people will be immediate and linking your fate and the fate of the other fighters for freedom with all the technological and other cooperation with China.”

Lai responded, “I think that’s very important.” The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai agreed with Sharansky’s remarks. Lai confirmed. The prosecution then asserted that Lai emphasized the effectiveness of “technology sanctions” as a means to advocate for such measures against China. Lai denied the claim, stating that it was an idea raised by Sharansky, not him.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had agreed with Sharansky’s view at the time. Lai responded that he agreed with linking technological cooperation with the fate of Uyghurs and Hongkongers. Lee then asked if Lai supported linking “technology embargoes” to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. Lai said that this approach was preferable, but he did not explicitly advocate for it.

The prosecution further cited an article written by Lai, published on November 29, 2020, in his column “Success and Failure with A Laugh,” titled “Encircling China: Biden Caught in a Dilemma”. The article stated:

“Trump launched a trade war, banning the export of high technology and chips to China, dealing a blow to its economy. Even if this does not lead to a collapse, China would be forced to make significant concessions and reform its political system to integrate into Western civilization. Trump’s ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the Chinese Communist Party’s threat to the world. If Biden shares this objective, he must act decisively and uphold Trump’s tough policy on China. However, Biden is a seasoned politician skilled at compromise, and his fickle nature makes it unlikely for him to follow Trump’s hardline approach. In fact, he has already declared his intention to abandon punitive measures, including lifting tariffs imposed under the trade war. While this is an appeasement policy toward China, it appears that he will continue to ban the export of high-tech products and chips to China.”

The prosecution again asked whether Lai supported the U.S. government in maintaining a “technology embargo” against China. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely analyzing the situation and the potential consequences of such actions. The prosecution then suggested that Lai feared the Biden administration would not follow Trump’s hardline stance on China, including the “technology embargo.” Lai denied this, stating that he was merely discussing Biden’s policy decisions. The prosecution insisted that Lai advocated for continued “technology sanctions” against China, but Lai denied this again, emphasizing that he was only analyzing the situation.

10:06 Court in Session

The Witness