Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three related companies of Apple Daily are charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” among other offenses. The trial, which took place at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), reached its 66th day on Thursday (25th). The fifth “accomplice witness,” Chan Tsz-wah, testified for the eighth day. Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang said on Wednesday that the main questioning was nearly complete and requested a postponement to review the evidence, planning to summarize the main questioning on Thursday, after which the defense would begin their cross-examination. During the defense’s cross-examination, Chan confirmed that he decided to become a witness in this case between March and April 2021. The defense also noted that, including video recordings and written statements, Chan had met with the police 81 times, totaling 103 hours, though Chan stated he does not remember the exact duration.

On Wednesday, Chan stated that he was arrested in October 2020 for assisting criminals and called Mark Simon a few days after his release. Simon indicated that he and Lai would arrange legal and other support for him, “and also prepare an escape route for you in the United States.” He also quoted Mark Simon as saying, “You don’t need to do anything, but be mentally prepared, you will be arrested again, and the charge will be under the National Security Law,” and urged Chan to continue international lobbying.

The case is presided over by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law, Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Representing the prosecution are 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. Representing Jimmy Lai are 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.

16:27 Court adjourns

16:12 Defense claims Martin Lee described Chan as “peaceful and non-violent”; Chan: does not remember

The defense stated that during that meeting, Martin Lee called Chan a rational, non-violent person. Chan said he had no recollection of this. The defense displayed a statement from Chan dated April 28, 2021, “So Martin Lee, he very clearly made him understand that actually I am a peaceful and non-violent person.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked Chan if this statement could jog his memory. Chan responded, “I remember he (Martin Lee) said I was involved in newspaper advertisements and crowdfunding.”

The defense then suggested, in other words, Chan does not remember whether Martin Lee had told Lai during that meeting that Chan was “peaceful and non-violent”? Chan agreed. The defense noted that this statement was made three years ago when memories should have been clearer than now? Chan said that was not the case. The defense further asked if Chan was someone whose memory improved over time? Chan said no.

Additionally, Chan stated that he is not a member of the “valiant” faction, nor “frontline”, and does not engage in violent acts during protests.

Lawyer from New Zealand Marc Corlett KC, representing the defense, estimated that the cross-examination would take 4 to 5 days and also mentioned he needed to attend a civil case at the High Court on April 30. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted that this case would not convene on May 2, suggesting Marc Corlett apply to the presiding judge of the civil case to reschedule that hearing to May 2, and that this case would resume tomorrow (April 26).

15:36 Chan confirms initial negative attitudes towards “Laam Chau” from Lai, Mark Simon, and others

The defense focused on Chan’s earlier statement under main examination, that before the National Security Law was enacted, he first met Jimmy Lai in July 2019 at a Japanese restaurant arranged by Martin Lee, with Lee also present. The defense noted that the restaurant, called “Wanya,” was reportedly opened by the younger brother of former vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance, Albert Ho. Chan stated under cross-examination that he was unsure if it was opened by Albert Ho’s brother, “I was just told it was opened by Albert Ho’s younger brother,” and noted that he had already met Martin Lee by then.

The defense indicated that Chan’s first meeting with Lai was actually on October 17, 2019, and presented a message Chan sent to Lai the following day saying, “Hello Mr. Lai,” to which Lai replied, “Great to have met you. Keep in touch.” Chan disagreed.

The defense continued, stating that at that meeting, Martin Lee introduced Chan to Lai as someone who was neither a proponent of “Laam Chau” nor pro-independence, which Chan denied occurred at the first meeting. The prosecution showed a statement from October 11, 2020, right after Chan’s first arrest, “I remember asking Martin Lee why he liked to interact with me. His plain answer was that he thought I was not one of those into ‘Laam Chau’ or for Hong Kong independence.”

The defense asked if the testimony provided to the police was true. Chan responded, “I’m not sure if Martin Lee really thought that, but he did say at that time he didn’t see me as someone advocating for independence,” emphasizing that Lee did not mention this at the meeting and he had no recollection of being described as not one of those into ‘Laam Chau’. The prosecution asked when Lee said this; Chan mentioned it was a week or two after the second crowdfunding event and the publication of a joint declaration by the “Laam Chau team” in English and Chinese.

The defense noted that Chan did not accept “Laam Chau” and often mocked those who supported it; Chan disagreed, stating, “I never mock any ‘Laam Chau’ members.” The defense displayed a statement from Chan on October 11, 2020, “I personally don’t buy it because I always joke with them saying, you talk about ‘Laam Chau’, ‘Laam Chau’, so what has come out of it now? I always tease them.”

The defense asked if it was true that Chan mentioned “don’t buy Laam Chau” and “always laughed at them”? Chan replied, “I laughed at the concept of ‘Laam Chau’ because I live the concept myself.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan had mocked those who supported “Laam Chau” at the time; Chan said he had not. The defense further asked if Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, and Mark Simon initially had negative attitudes towards “Laam Chau.” Chan confirmed, “Initially, yes.”

15:35 Chan confirms no payments received from Lai’s account after February 24, 2020

The defense cited that Chan had been reimbursed HK$144,000 for organizing street booths and promotional work, which Chan confirmed. The defense also mentioned that from January 2020, the offshore company LACOCK, registered under Chan’s name, had HK$80,000 in its bank account. The defense noted that Mark Simon had instructed him to return the funds, but Chan had not done so by the time of his arrest. Chan confirmed this as well.

The defense referred to Chan being reimbursed for a trip to Taiwan on February 24, 2020, amounting to about HK$80,000. The defense stated that since then, no further payments had been transferred to Chan from Lai’s account. Chan agreed and also confirmed that no money had been transferred to him from “Lais Hotel,” Dico, “Chartwell,” or any of Lai’s companies since February 24. Chan also agreed that neither Mark Simon nor any companies associated with him had transferred any money to him since that date.

15:20 Defense questions discrepancies between Chan’s court testimony and recorded meetings with police

The defense further questioned, from the time Chan knew Mark Simon until his arrest, had Simon ever asked Chan to do anything? Chan responded, “I don’t recall ever saying that.” The defense then presented a transcript of a conversation from a video meeting with the police on October 11, 2020, shortly after Chan’s first arrest, when he had not yet agreed to cooperate with the police. It showed, “From the time I knew Mark Simon to today, he never asked, directed, or instructed me to do anything, never.” Chan agreed he had made such a statement. The defense asked if this was the true situation? Chan denied.

The defense then asked when was the last time Chan had contact with Mark Simon? Chan said, “I was still talking to him at the end of 2020.” The defense noted that at that time, did Simon remind him to consider how to get his life back on track since there would no longer be large-scale social movements in Hong Kong? Chan denied. The defense then displayed another transcript from a video meeting after his first arrest, which showed, “What he (Mark Simon) told me was, ‘What you need to think about is how to get your life back on track, because Hong Kong won’t have large-scale social movements like this again.'” After reading the transcript, Chan stated, “That’s what I told the police at the time.” The defense asked if this was the truth? Chan denied. The defense then asked if it was a lie? Chan disagreed.

The defense asked, so when Chan told the police, “From the time I knew Mark Simon to today, he never asked, directed, or instructed me to do anything, never,” was that a lie? Chan agreed. The defense pointed out to Chan that the statement he made to the police was actually the truth; and that the claim he made in his statement on May 5, 2021, that Mark Simon instructed him to continue international lobbying, was actually a lie? Chan disagreed.

The defense continued, so in the conversations between Chan and Mark Simon, including Finn Lau’s touring lectures and Simon instructing Chan to continue international lobbying, Jimmy Lai was not involved in those conversations? Chan confirmed.

15:10 Defense questions if police provided pre-written statements during meetings with Chan; Chan denies

The defense stated that Chan recorded three written statements between May 3 and 5, 2021, and then another statement on November 10, 2022. The defense noted that the content of the conversations between Chan and Mark Simon appeared in Chan’s written statements, especially in the statement recorded on May 5.

The defense displayed the relevant paragraphs in court:

“5. Around July 2020 (after the National Security Law was enacted), I still maintained contact with Mark Simon using Signal call. During these conversations, we discussed the arrests of Jimmy Lai and Andy Li in mid-August 2020. Mark Simon expressed that being arrested under the National Security Law charges was a good thing as it would draw more attention to Apple Daily, boosting its sales. Regarding Andy Li’s arrest, Mark Simon mentioned that it would not affect the operations of the ‘Laam Chau’ team, and that they also had a Plan B, which involved Finn Lau touring U.S. academic institutions to give lectures on ‘Laam Chau’ and continue calling for U.S. sanctions against the CCP and Hong Kong.

6. Around October 2020, after I was arrested and bailed for aiding a criminal, I contacted Mark Simon via Signal call. Mark Simon told me not to worry, as he and Jimmy Lai would arrange support for me from various quarters and plan an exit strategy for me in the U.S. Additionally, Mark Simon would use channels in Taiwan and the U.S. to keep tabs on my case, and told me I didn’t need to do anything. However, Mark Simon warned me to be mentally prepared for possible re-arrest by the police under the National Security Law, and finally, Mark Simon told me not to worry too much nor give up the fight but to continue international lobbying and other democratic activities.”

The defense asked if the police had brought pre-written statements to the meetings with Chan. Chan denied this. Chan added that during his meetings with the police, they would type out the statements in front of him, “because I couldn’t see their computer screen to check if it had content… they would ask one or two questions, but then I would just keep talking and they would keep typing.”

15:00 Defense inquires about the situations after Li and Chan were arrested

The defense questioned about the circumstances after Andy Li was arrested by public security on August 23, 2020. The defense asked if Chan had written any letters to Li from the time Li was arrested by public security until he returned to Hong Kong in March 2021. Chan stated he had not.

Earlier in the main questioning, Chan testified that he and Mark Simon communicated via Signal Call in mid-August 2020, after Jimmy Lai and Andy Li were arrested. At that time, Mark Simon mentioned “plan B,” which involved Finn Lau giving lectures at a U.S. school to promote “Laam Chau” (mutual destruction). In October of the same year, Chan was arrested by the police for aiding and abetting a criminal. After being released, during a call with Mark Simon, he was told not to worry but to be mentally prepared for another arrest under the National Security Law, and that Chan should continue engaging in international lobbying and other democratic activities to push for sanctions.

The defense cited that during four recorded police interviews from April 28 to 30, 2021, Chan did not mention to the police that Mark Simon had instructed him not to worry, to continue international lobbying, and to push for sanctions? Chan stated he did not remember.

14:32 Chan confirms contact with Andy Li after his arrest but denies arranging for Li to leave Hong Kong

The defense began questioning about Andy Li’s arrest in August 2020 and his attempt to leave the country. The defense mentioned that Li was arrested by the police on August 10, released on bail two days later, arrested by Chinese public security on August 23, and did not return to Hong Kong until March 22, 2021. The defense asked if there was any form of communication between Chan and Li from the time Li was released on bail on August 12 to his arrest by Chinese public security on August 23. Chan confirmed there was.

The defense quoted that during his testimony, Andy Li mentioned that after being released on police bail, he had a phone call with Chan, during which Chan said he would arrange for Li to leave Hong Kong. The defense asked Chan if such a conversation took place. Chan stated it had not.

The defense further inquired if there was any contact between Chan and Li during the 13 days from Li’s release on bail until his arrest by Chinese police. Chan confirmed there was, mentioning that Li talked about “what he wanted to do and also borrowing money.” Besides, Li also expressed that “if anything happened, he had things he wanted to hand over,” such as asking Chan to take care of Li’s family, and what SWHK should do next. Additionally, Li expressed a desire to leave Hong Kong. The defense noted that there were two to three calls between them at that time? Chan said, “I believe more.”

Regarding their conversation about SWHK, Chan added that at that time, Li said, “We need to continue on the international front, he (Li) hopes that once he leaves, he can carry on, otherwise he worries that there won’t be anyone in Hong Kong to hold the fort.” Chan noted that they discussed the Japan line, the U.S. line, and whether Chan should also leave if Li “really can’t make it.” They also discussed the potential impact on SWHK if Li were arrested, as Li mentioned “all the contents of his mobile phone would be exposed.” Chan further added that one of the calls also involved Finn Lau, “and when Li said he needed money to flee, he actually wanted to use SWHK’s money, or that we raise money for him.”

11:53 Court adjourned for lunch

11:42 Chan states no verbal agreement with Lai to engage in illegal activities after the National Security Law took effect

The defense proposed asking, “Chan did not agree with Lai to engage in some activities that would be illegal under the National Security Law?” The prosecution again expressed concern, noting that this was the same as the previous question. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang suggested why not limit the question to verbal agreements? The defense agreed, stating this was “one possible formulation.”

After the discussion, Chan Tsz-wah re-entered the courtroom. The defense then asked Chan if, after the National Security Law took effect, he had reached a verbal agreement with Jimmy Lai that Chan would engage in some activities that had become illegal under the National Security Law. Chan stated he had not.

11:11 Court adjourned

10:55 The prosecution concerned about the defense’s wording; the judge ordered a short break for the defense to organize their questions

Regarding Chan Tsz-wah’s testimony during the main examination, he stated that from his meeting with Jimmy Lai on June 16, 2020, until his arrest on February 15, 2021, Lai did not advise against continuing to lobby for international sanctions against Hong Kong and China with Mark Simon, Andy Li, and Finn Lau. The defense further inquired whether, from July 1, 2020, to the time of Chan’s arrest, Chan had told Lai that he and Andy Li would continue international lobbying and implementing sanctions, even knowing these activities would become illegal under the National Security Law. Chan stated he had not.

The defense noted that, in other words, after July 1, 2020, Chan had not discussed the effectiveness of the National Security Law with Lai? Chan agreed. The defense asked if Lai had personally instructed Chan to continue some activities that would be illegal under the National Security Law. Chan said, “He never directly told me that.” The defense then asked if Chan, after the National Security Law, had not told Lai that he would engage in some illegal activities under the law. Chan responded, “Does it include what I told Lai through Mark Simon?” The defense clarified they were referring only to direct communications between Chan and Lai, and Chan then said no.

The defense asked if Chan and Lai had not agreed to engage in illegal activities under the National Security Law. Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang expressed concern about the use of the word “agree,” suggesting “communicate” instead, and requested that the witness leave the courtroom. The defense reiterated the importance of the question; the prosecution stated that the witness could not pinpoint accurately.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also focused on whether there was an “agreement” between Chan and Lai. The prosecution agreed that an agreement does not necessarily have to be verbal but can also be reflected in actions. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios believed the witness had already answered, “If there are still people striving hard, such as Andy Li and Jimmy Lai, people I know who are working hard for Hong Kong, I think I would ultimately do it.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping finally ordered a short recess to allow the defense to organize their questions.

10:30 Chan mentions considering continuing to push for sanctions after the National Security Law took effect

The defense asked Chan Tsz-wah if he had read the provisions of the National Security Law after it came into effect on the evening of June 30, 2020. Chan confirmed that he had read the provisions several days after the law was enacted. The defense pointed out that some actions, which were not illegal before the law took effect, could become illegal afterwards? Chan confirmed.

The defense then displayed a conversation between Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li dated July 23, 2020, after the law was enacted, in which Chan told Li, “I am not sure about the implication of NSL on you. Yet, it does not mean we don’t do anything under the new law.” The defense quoted this message and asked if Chan meant that even if some actions were illegal, it would not completely stop their democratic activities? Chan denied this, explaining that at the time, there were still many SWHK members abroad who could continue to call for sanctions.

The defense further asked if Chan meant that people in Hong Kong should be aware of the “new red lines” under the law and stay on the legal side? Chan denied. The defense then asked if Chan believed that there was a difference between what people in Hong Kong could do under the National Security Law and what people abroad could do? Chan denied.

The defense asked, so was Chan planning to engage in some activities knowing they would violate the National Security Law? Chan responded that “the thought at the time depended on who was around,” adding that if people were still “striving hard,” such as Andy Li and Jimmy Lai, “these people I know, all striving for Hong Kong, I think I would eventually do it.” When Chan sent the message to Andy Li, he believed “there was a need to continue pushing for sanctions because at that time, I felt that even figures like Jimmy Lai, who could be fearless and set an example, meant that there were things that needed to be done, but to what extent, I was still considering.” The defense pursued further, asking if Chan still wanted to push for sanctions even knowing the actions had become illegal? Chan responded, “I was inclined to do so, but whether I would really act, I was still considering at that time.”

10:15 Chan confirms no meetings with Lai after the National Security Law took effect

The defense mentioned that in the four recorded video segments and his written statements, Chan did not mention having any phone contact with Jimmy Lai after the enactment of the National Security Law. Chan confirmed this. The defense pointed out that Chan did not mention any relevant calls with Lai in the recordings and written statements, and had said in court he had no recollection, because there had never been any phone contact between Lai and Chan after the law took effect? Chan disagreed. Chan clarified that the earlier question in court was whether he had contacted Jimmy Lai, not specifically about making phone calls. Chan finally stated that he had not called Lai after the National Security Law took effect.

The defense continued, noting that Chan also had not met with Lai after the enactment of the National Security Law, with their last meeting being on June 16, 2020, at the Next Digital building; nor had Chan met with Lai via video. Chan agreed with all these points.

The defense displayed a Signal conversation between Lai and Chan, with Chan asking on July 13, 2020, “Is your case going well today?” to which Lai responded, “It’s a small one. I’ll be quick, just pay bail and go.” The defense noted that, apart from the message mentioned, according to Chan’s memory, there had been no other message communications between Lai and Chan after the National Security Law took effect. Chan confirmed this.

The defense also noted that Chan was arrested on February 15, 2021, under the National Security Law, with the charge period spanning from July 1, 2020, to the date of arrest. Chan confirmed. The defense then stated that all of Chan’s activities before the enactment of the National Security Law were not charged? Chan mentioned he was also arrested in October 2020, saying at that time he was told he was suspected of “splitting the country.” Under cross-examination, Chan confirmed that he was ultimately charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.”

10:05 Chan: Decided to become a witness in this case around March and April 2021

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang stated that the main questioning was completed, and the defense’s cross-examination was conducted by Marc Corlett, a King’s Counsel from New Zealand. The defense cited that during the main questioning, the prosecution had asked whether Chan Tsz-wah had communicated with Jimmy Lai after the National Security Law came into effect, to which Chan replied, “I don’t recall at the moment.” The defense asked if Chan’s response at that time meant he planned to review his previous written statements that evening. Chan denied it. The defense further asked if Chan had reviewed his statements in the evening to remind himself. Chan said he did not. Under further questioning, Chan confirmed that he decided to become a witness in this case between March and April 2021.

The defense noted that Chan subsequently conducted four recorded police interviews and provided written statements. Chan acknowledged giving oral and written statements but did not remember the number of recordings.

The defense further pointed out that, including the recorded sessions and written statements, Chan had met with the police a total of 81 times. Does that sound about right? Chan confirmed. The defense then asked if the total time spent, including recordings and written statements, amounted to 103 hours, and if that sounds correct. Chan stated he could not confirm the duration.

10:00 The court session begins.

The Witness