Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three related companies of Apple Daily are charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other crimes. The case continued on Thursday (11th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) for the 58th day of the trial. Andy Li, one of the “12 Hongkongers” and the fourth accomplice witness, testified for the 15th day. Under cross-examination by the defense, he agreed that his actions before the enactment of the National Security Law (NSL), including crowdfunding for advertisements and international lobbying, were all legal. He disagreed with engaging in illegal activities and had not assisted others in illegal acts.

On Wednesday, under cross-examination, Andy Li also agreed that he had never met or communicated with Jimmy Lai before and after the enactment of the NSL. Regarding Mark Simon, who is alleged to be Jimmy Lai’s personal assistant, Andy Li confirmed that he had only met Simon once in September 2019 during a meeting with visiting US Senator Rick Scott and had no contact with Simon after the NSL came into effect.

The case is presided over by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Jimmy Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett with Hong Kong practice qualification.

---

15:38 Court Adjourned

15:00 Judge Inquires About Andy Li’s Income and Savings

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired about Andy Li’s background. Andy Li stated that he was working as a “Programmer” in 2019. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if he had his own business at that time. Andy Li replied that he could say so, and he used to take on some programming work “on a project basis.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further asked if Andy Li had been involved in “activist work” since June 2019. Andy Li confirmed that he continued his work as a programmer, which was also his source of income. He added that he started working as a programmer before graduating from university, and by the time of the case, he had been working for nearly 10 years. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked if Andy Li had about 3 million Hong Kong dollars in savings during the “G20” crowdfunding campaign. Andy Li clarified that after reading the documents, he realized he had about 4 million Hong Kong dollars, all from his income as a programmer. Andy Li also confirmed that he did not receive any payment for setting up the IPAC website.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios was concerned about how Andy Li managed his finances when his account was low on funds due to upfront payments. Andy Li explained that one of the instances was the “G20” advertisement campaign, where he had about 4 million Hong Kong dollars in income, and when he made an upfront payment of over 3 million dollars, he sought assistance, “I didn’t run out of money.” Before the district council election observation team in December 2019, when he was short on funds, he sought help from Chan, and Mark Simon eventually transferred 500,000 dollars to his account as a refund for the upfront payment for the “G20” advertisement campaign, “so I didn’t reach the point where I ran out of money and couldn’t live.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Andy Li had visited France and Geneva, Switzerland, and if he had reimbursed himself from the crowdfunding for those trips. Andy Li stated that he paid for most of the expenses, such as plane tickets and hotels, himself, and got some reimbursements from the crowdfunding, “but not all of it.” Regarding the funds he advanced for the election observation team, Andy Li said he was responsible for some miscellaneous expenses and also advanced several hundred thousand dollars for Wilson Li Chung-chak, who was in charge of the itinerary. In total, Andy Li advanced about 520,000 dollars for the election observation team.

The defense continued to inquire about Andy Li’s income, presenting his tax bills for the fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, which showed he needed to pay taxes of 140,000 and 160,000 dollars, respectively, and his assessed income for 2018-2019 was about 1.05 million dollars. Andy Li confirmed that this income was from his work as a programmer.

The defense asked if Andy Li’s income had remained at this level in the years before this tax period. Andy Li described that his income was lower in the early years, starting with an hourly rate of 15 US dollars, which later increased to 40 US dollars, “and then gradually I got projects, and it slowly went up to 40-something, 50-something, and then reached the level shown on the tax bill.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping told Andy Li that he had completed his testimony, to which Andy Li responded with an “Oh.” He kept looking at the public gallery while waiting for the seat to be arranged and did not look around when leaving. The case will continue on Friday (12th), with the prosecution calling Chan Tsz-wah to testify.

14:33 Prosecution Begins Re-examination

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang began the re-examination. Andy Li had previously stated during the defense’s cross-examination that after September 30, 2019, he had not received any money from companies associated with Mark Simon. In the re-examination, Andy Li clarified that the related companies referred to “Lais Hotel,” “Dico Consultants Limited,” and “Chartwell Holding Ltd.” Andy Li added that Jimmy Lai knew Mark Simon, and if the companies of Chan Tsz-wah’s side “included Jimmy Lai and the companies mentioned earlier,” then those three companies would be related to Mark Simon and be part of Chan’s side.

The prosecution followed up by asking if all three companies were related to Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon. Andy Li described that the three companies belonged to Chan’s side, and both Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon were part of Chan’s side.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang mentioned that Andy Li had stated during the cross-examination that after being released on police bail, he used a “ghost phone” to contact people, and his sister Beatrice knew he was using a “ghost phone.” Did Chan Tsz-wah learn about the “ghost phone” through his sister? Andy Li said he didn’t know if Chan learned about it through his sister and was not sure if Chan knew his sister. Initially, his sister arranged everything after his release on bail, “and then I assume she communicated with someone, maybe with T (Chan).”

12:49 Lunch Break

12:15 Defense Inquires About Escape Attempt

The defense questioned Andy Li about his illegal departure on August 23, 2020. Andy Li confirmed that he was arrested by Chinese police at that time. He confirmed that he was arrested on August 10, and released on police bail two days later, after which he contacted Chan Tsz-wah. The defense suggested that Chan had arranged for Andy Li to leave Hong Kong by water. Andy Li confirmed.

The defense pointed out that on August 18, Chan instructed Andy Li to go to LOHAS Park. Andy Li recalled that at that time, Chan or someone else informed him to go to LOHAS Park. He added that arrangements were made for him to “escape unnoticed,” and he also used a “ghost phone,” with which some people would contact him. Apart from Chan, his sister Beatrice also knew he was using a “ghost phone.” Under questioning, Andy Li confirmed that he was instructed to take “anti-surveillance” measures and was provided with information about a “safe house.”

The defense suggested that at around 3 a.m. on August 23, someone instructed him to go to the Po Toi O pier? Andy Li confirmed and said he was provided with the contact of a boatman. The defense asked if he was instructed to surrender upon arrival in Taiwan? Andy Li confirmed. The defense asked if Chan or someone else informed him that his information would be handed over to Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council. After being released in Taiwan, Andy Li was supposed to follow a Czech government plane to the Czech Republic and then find a way to London, UK? Andy Li said that there were instructions that “if time permits, there would be a Czech flight that he could follow.”

The defense asked whether the instructions were conveyed to Andy Li through messages or other means of communication? Andy Li recalled that apart from a phone call after his initial release on bail, he had no further phone conversations with Chan.

The defense asked whether in his conversations with Chan, Chan mentioned arranging a boat for him? Andy Li said that at that time, Chan only mentioned making “arrangements” without specifying a boat.

The defense concluded their questioning.

11:53 Andy Li: Chan Tsz-wah once mentioned that Israeli forces could train valiants, but “I don’t know how serious he was”

The defense asked about Chan Tsz-wah’s contact with Andy Li. The defense suggested that at the time, Andy Li understood Chan as the leader of the valiant group? Andy Li said he did not know. The defense continued, suggesting that, in his understanding, “valiant” was a method to undermine the Hong Kong government? Andy Li described in court that “valiant” could create a perception that a government “is not actually able to govern a territory.”

The defense continued to mention that in August and September 2019, Chan asked Andy Li to meet in Fo Tan, where a man named Cap and a woman named Cath were present. The defense said that at the time, Chan told Andy Li that Cath was responsible for making petrol bombs and other weapons. Andy Li said that terms like “scientific experiment” were used at that time. The defense said that Chan also mentioned that “valiant” involved incidents like the “721 white-shirted men,” protests at the Liaison Office, and the 2020 explosives incident at the port. Andy Li confirmed.

The defense also suggested that Chan mentioned his squad would be responsible for a shooting incident in Tai Po? Andy Li recalled that Chan said, “Someone is playing with guns in Tai Po, like ‘damn, why play with guns so soon’ kind of thing.” Andy Li stated that he understood Chan was questioning that person, “damn him for prematurely playing with guns, so (the shooting incident) should be related to people on T’s side.”

The defense further asked if Chan had mentioned that if a government in exile were established, an army would be formed? Andy Li said that at the time, he understood that if there was to be an “army,” it would be developed by Chan or other valiants. The defense continued, asking that Chan also mentioned that if an army were formed, it would be trained by the Israeli forces? Andy Li recalled that Chan mentioned that Israeli forces could train militants, but “I don’t know how serious he was.”

11:11 Court adjourned

11:05 Andy Li confirms he never discussed IPAC matters with Jimmy Lai

The defense continued to ask about IPAC matters. Andy Li stated that besides helping to set up the IPAC website, he also contacted Japanese legislator Shiori Yamao, who then contacted another legislator, Gen Nakatani, and the two became IPAC’s Japanese co-chairs. Andy Li said he was responsible for editing the website, and the content was provided by people like Luke de Pulford. Sometimes he noticed typos in the content and would notify them, but he would not modify the content without approval.

The defense continued to point out that regarding Andy Li’s responsibilities for the IPAC website and attending IPAC meetings, he had never discussed these matters with Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon. As for Chan Tsz-wah, Andy Li said he did not inform Chan before the IPAC website went public, but later he did discuss IPAC matters with Chan.

11:00 Li: Continued Lobbying Work After National Security Law Was the “Least Evil” Decision

The defense asked about the Signal conversation between Andy Li and Chan Tsz-wah, where Chan sent a message on July 23, 2020, saying, “I am not sure about the implication of NSL on you.” Andy Li stated in court that by July 23, he had become even more skeptical about the National Security Law, “because it was really used to arrest activists.”

The defense asked if the decision to continue the previous lobbying work was Andy Li’s own decision. Li described the decision as “not a comfortable one for me, but it seemed to be the least evil decision for me.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Li was facing two options at the time: continuing his previous work at the risk of violating the law and being arrested, or terminating his previous work, and Li chose to continue? Andy Li explained that he was not considering those options at the time but was skeptical that he had already been seen as a political enemy by Beijing, “so the regime would already have a way to arrest and charge me,” and “even if I didn’t continue advocacy, I would be arrested,” so he decided to continue.

The defense continued to ask about the discussion between Chan and Li regarding the government in exile. Li confirmed that the SWHK website did not mention a government in exile, and other TG groups also did not discuss a government in exile. The defense noted that Li was responsible for the SWHK website at the time but was not responsible for Twitter, Facebook, or writing press releases. Li confirmed and agreed that when publishing content on the SWHK website, he did not consult with Jimmy Lai or Mark Simon. Li also would not instruct other SWHK people to handle Facebook, Twitter, and press releases.

10:50 Judge Asks Why No Action Was Stopped; Li: Because He Felt “Beijing Would Move the Goalposts”

The defense continued to ask about Li’s understanding of the red lines in lobbying work, what could be done, and what could not be done at the time. Li described that, in his understanding, “Beijing would move the goalposts,” and it was not up to him or other citizens “to know where the red line was, rather, I understood there would be a broad interpretation to allow Beijing to move the goalposts.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further asked why Li did not ask Luke de Pulford to stop the related activities at the time. Andy Li explained that because he felt “Beijing would move the goalposts,” even if “you don’t do anything, if Beijing wants to politically prosecute you, they will use something else to charge you.” Regardless of whether the National Security Law was used, with the approach of “moving the goalposts,” “they would say what I’m accusing you of is covered by law, that was my understanding at that time.” Li also described that he did not believe the text would be interpreted as “literally as the text suggests,” and if Beijing considered you a political enemy, “whether you continue or not, they will find a way to politically prosecute you, so it didn’t matter whether I continued or not,” so he decided to continue with the related work.

10:45 Andy Li Confirms Asking Luke de Pulford About Lobbying Countries to Cancel Legal Assistance with Hong Kong After National Security Law Came Into Effect

The defense continued to quote a message between Andy Li and Luke de Pulford on July 2, 2020, in which Li asked, “Is it a good idea to lobby for governments to cancel their mutual legal assistance or fugitive surrender arrangements with Hong Kong?” and mentioned Articles 29 and 38 of the National Security Law in the message.

The defense asked if Li considered international lobbying to be illegal after reading the text of the National Security Law. Li described it as “reckless to whether it’s illegal.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked how Li thought Article 29 of the National Security Law, related to “colluding with foreign or external forces to endanger national security,” would affect future lobbying efforts when he read it. Andy Li stated in court that he understood Article 29 to have “broad wording, and Article 38 talks about ‘applying to people worldwide,’ something like that.” He also mentioned the message he sent to de Pulford about “the history of broad interpretations used by Beijing against those it considers as political enemies.”

Li continued, since the National Security Law was drafted by the National People’s Congress and applied to Hong Kong, he expected it to be interpreted broadly and used against “political enemies.” Li added that Article 38 of the National Security Law uses the term “global jurisdiction,” so he told de Pulford at the time that “the law would reach your country and citizens of other countries, so maybe to protect your country and citizens of other countries, you might review or cancel mutual legal assistance or fugitive surrender arrangements” to prevent the National Security Law from affecting citizens of other countries.

10:20 Andy Li Confirms Telling Luke de Pulford ‘You’ve Committed a Crime’ After National Security Law Came Into Effect

The defense continued to question Andy Li about the situation after the implementation of the National Security Law. The defense pointed out that before the government announced the text of the National Security Law, Li did not know the contents of the law, right? Li confirmed. The defense continued to suggest that before reading the text of the National Security Law, Li knew that some actions legal before the National Security Law would become illegal after its implementation, but Li did not know the exact contents before reading the text? Li agreed that this could be understood.

The defense presented a conversation between Andy Li and Luke de Pulford, the founder of IPAC (Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China) and a member of the British Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission. On the night the National Security Law came into effect, Li messaged, “NSL text expected to come out in 24hrs” and later said, “we’re reading it now,” “the chi text is out.”

Li then messaged, “It’s worse than we thought,” “you have committed a crime according to the text:).” Li explained in court that at that time, Luke de Pulford was not a Hong Kong citizen, nor was he within the “geographic jurisdiction” of Hong Kong, but according to his understanding of the National Security Law text, the law could “reach to where Luke de Pulford is and define that he has committed a crime.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Li meant that he thought de Pulford had committed a crime because he had targeted Hong Kong in some actions? Li responded, “I remember it’s because the NSL text has a universal jurisdiction kind of meaning.” Judge Lee further asked if that meant “extraterritorial effect”? Andy Li confirmed and added that he thought the text of the National Security Law was “very vague” at that time. Judge Lee then asked if the scope of the text was broad enough to cover the actions of Luke de Pulford? Andy Li confirmed.

10:10 Andy Li Agrees that Crowdfunding and Lobbying Activities Before National Security Law Were Legal

Marc Corlett, a New Zealand King’s Counsel representing the defense, continued to question Andy Li about his actions before and after the implementation of the National Security Law. The defense referenced that between June 2019 and July 2020, before the National Security Law came into effect, Li had participated in crowdfunding for advertisements, international lobbying, assisting “Lam Chau” in hosting British MP Bob Seely in Hong Kong, visiting the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, and meeting with US Senator Rick Scott in Hong Kong. Li confirmed and agreed that these actions were legal at the time, and there were no charges related to these activities.

Li confirmed that, to his knowledge, all actions before the implementation of the National Security Law were legal, and there was no consensus within SWHK (Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong) that Li could represent SWHK in illegal activities. He also disagreed with engaging in illegal activities and did not assist others in conducting illegal activities.

10:02 The court session begins.

Source