Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and three related companies of Apple Daily are charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” among other crimes. The case continued on Monday (29th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) for the 68th day of the trial. Chan Tsz-wah, the fifth accomplice witness, testified for the tenth day, undergoing the third day of cross-examination by the defense.

During cross-examination, Chan confirmed that his statement during a video interview with the police in October 2020, after his first arrest, claiming he “did not assist Andy Li in leaving Hong Kong” was false, and he admitted to having provided assistance for Li to leave Hong Kong and tried to arrange a safe house for him.

The defense also presented a letter from Chan Tsz-wah’s legal team to the Department of Justice in May 2021, asking if the prosecution would consider dropping some charges if Chan served as a prosecution witness. The Department of Justice later agreed to the proposal, and the charge of assisting a criminal was archived.

The case is presided over by 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. Jimmy Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett, a New Zealand barrister qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

16:50 Court adjourned

15:00 Defense points out that Chan’s testimony in court was not mentioned in earlier video interviews or statements

The defense cited examples, such as when Chan talked about his fourth meeting with Lai on December 31, 2019, during his main examination. Chan mentioned in court that Lai said, “He hopes I understand that he doesn’t oppose the valiant faction, but he needs to appeal to the West to gain international support, so he needs to maintain such a stance.” The defense questioned this, noting that Chan’s written statement did not mention this content. Chan admitted in court, “But he did say it,” agreeing that it was not mentioned in the written statement.

Regarding the fifth meeting in Taipei in January 2020, Chan previously claimed that Finn Lau was willing to cooperate and agreed with the overall direction, but as for the “lam chau team,” it had to be discussed with “rip,” whom Chan identified to Lai as Andy Li. The defense pointed out that this content was also not mentioned in Chan’s written statement. Chan confirmed.

Concerning the sixth meeting with Lai at the Next Digital building on June 16, 2020, Chan had claimed that he expressed concerns about the National Security Law to Lai, suggesting that it was time to “step back,” meaning “to stop advocating for sanctions.” The defense noted that Chan’s written statement did not include this content. Chan said, “It wasn’t recorded that way.”

When questioned again, Judge Esther Toh suggested that Chan could review the statement. The defense offered to provide Chan with all transcripts for reference, giving him a list of items to review.

After a recess, the defense presented 14 pieces of evidence, noting that Chan had mentioned these contents in court, but they were not included in previous video interviews or statements. This included Chan claiming that Andy Li was “working on the Japan line,” but faced challenges in “reaching people under the table.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios stated that there would be no court session on Tuesday, but Chan Tsz-wah would be present to read the transcripts, and questioning by the defense would resume on Friday.

14:32 Chan confirms new evidence mentioned in court was not included in previous video and written statements

The defense continued to inquire about Chan Tsz-wah’s meetings with the police. The defense asked if, aside from discussing his physical condition, life in detention, “complaints,” and emotional breakdowns, Chan talked about anything else. Chan said no.

The records showed that the police visited Chan at Lai Chi Kok Detention Centre until May 14, 2021, and later at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre after May 21, 2021. The defense asked if Chan was transferred to Siu Lam due to his emotional state. Chan said he did not know. The defense further asked if Chan had received medical treatment for his emotional breakdowns. Chan said no, confirming that his condition was not severe enough to require medical intervention.

The defense noted that during the video meetings, the police had clearly stated they were investigating a case of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” involving Jimmy Lai, Mark Simon, Andy Li, and Finn Lau. The defense stated that Chan was aware he needed to disclose all details of meetings, phone calls, and messages with the aforementioned individuals as comprehensively as possible; he also needed to disclose everything related to calls for international sanctions and blockades. Chan confirmed this.

The defense continued, stating that Chan claimed to have met with Jimmy Lai six times. When giving his statement, the police would ask at the end if Chan had anything to add. The court showed an example where the police asked Chan, “So, did you talk about anything else at that meeting?” Regarding the fifth meeting with Lai in Taipei, the police also asked him, “Do you have anything else you want to say?” The defense pointed out that Chan intended to introduce quite a bit of new evidence in his testimony, which had not been mentioned in his earlier video meetings or written statements. Chan confirmed this.

13:07 Lunch break

12:25 Defense questions if Chan discussed testimony with police before video meetings, Chan: No recollection

The defense previously mentioned that, including video and written statements, Chan Tsz-wah had met with the police a total of 81 times, amounting to 103 hours. On Monday, the defense displayed records of Chan’s remand visits, showing that after his arrest on October 10, 2020, he had a video meeting and was re-arrested on February 15, 2021, followed by further police visits on the next day and on the 31st. The defense noted that around the end of March, Chan had inquired about the possibility of becoming a prosecution witness, which Chan confirmed.

The defense then displayed a visit record from April 28, 2021, marked “VRI (Video Recorded Interview),” which Chan confirmed was his first recorded meeting after becoming a prosecution witness. The defense also cited Chan’s visit records showing that from March 31 to April 26, 2021, police met with Chan for a total of 18 hours. The defense asked Chan if he had discussed his testimony with the police then, or only provided it during the video meeting on April 28. Chan stated he had no recollection.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked what was discussed during those meetings with the police in April 2021. Chan responded, “Mainly it was about my emotions…” Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired if there were other topics discussed. Chan said he had no recollection. Alex Lee Wan-tang continued, asking whether the police had handwritten or typed records of the 18 hours of meetings. Chan recalled that there might have been on March 31, 2021, “like I said I could cooperate with the police investigation,” but he had no recollection of the other meetings.

The defense noted that the police took Chan’s third written statement on May 5, 2021. Records showed that the police visited Chan again two days later and, from then until January 15, 2024, met with him 66 times for approximately 70 hours. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan had discussed his testimony with the police during these meetings. Chan said no.

The defense further inquired, apart from taking a written statement on November 10, 2022, if the police took notes during the other 65 meetings? Chan said he did not remember. The defense asked what was discussed during those 65 meetings, totaling about 65 hours. Chan replied, “My health, myself, mainly about life inside,” and he also mentioned “complaints.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked what the purpose of these meetings was. Chan believed initially they were procedural, to see how he was doing, “At first it was often about my emotional breakdowns. Later, I would talk about life, because I couldn’t see the sun inside, so, really, just talking about life, wanting to know more.”

Court records showed that the police visited Chan at Lai Chi Kok Detention Centre until May 14, 2021, and later at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre after May 21, 2021. Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan’s family and friends could visit him while he was remanded at Siu Lam. Chan responded that not all relatives and friends could visit, as applications were necessary.

12:12 Defense suggests Chan called Jimmy Lai about confidential U.S. matters, Chan denies

The defense cited Chan’s previous testimony, stating that he met with Mark Simon in May 2020. However, referencing Mark Simon’s travel records, the defense noted that after leaving on April 18, 2020, there were no records of Simon re-entering. The defense asked Chan if their meeting could have actually taken place on April 18. Chan agreed.

Regarding Chan’s earlier claim, when Jimmy Lai sent him a message claiming to be confidential information from the U.S. government and told Chan it was very secretive and not to share it with anyone else, Chan stated in court, “After receiving Lai’s message, I really wanted to forward it to Andy Li and Finn Lau, so I called Jimmy Lai to ask if I could disclose it to them.” The defense pointed out that there was no such call between Chan and Lai at that time. Chan disagreed.

11:25 Break

11:10 Chan denies ever claiming to lead a government in exile or form an army

Regarding Chan’s earlier statement that he was not part of the valiant faction, the defense further inquired whether Chan actually controlled one or more valiant teams. Chan denied this and also disagreed with the notion that viewing the valiant faction as a method to demonstrate that the Hong Kong government is ineffective in governance. The defense noted that Chan met with Andy Li during July to August 2019 at a warehouse in Fo Tan; Chan confirmed that a man named “Captain” and a woman named “Cath” were present.

Chan denied saying to Andy Li that day that “Captain” was a valiant team leader and “Cath” was responsible for making explosives and Molotov cocktails, but in court, he believed that both were members of a valiant team. Chan also stated that he did not inform Li where his valiant team stored explosives, nor did he mention their involvement in the “721 white-shirt” incident, the Liaison Office protests, or the 2020 border explosives incident.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan had not mentioned the above matters, then did anyone else present do so? Chan said, “But when I introduced Cath and Captain to Andy Li, the things just mentioned hadn’t happened yet,” and he pointed out that they only claimed to be frontline protesters. Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired whether the meeting was in July or August. Chan stated it was after the first crowdfunding campaign, “I don’t remember if it was after the third crowdfunding or not, but there was a symposium, so I invited Andy Li. But I never said I had a valiant squad that did any of the things just mentioned.”

Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan had not mentioned the above matters, but did anyone else present do so? Chan said, “Indeed, it’s possible.” Chan agreed that on another occasion, he discussed with Li the Tai Po shooting incident and the 721 white-shirt incident, but he did not imply that his valiant team was involved in these two events.

Regarding Andy Li’s earlier claim that Chan had expressed intentions to form a government in exile and establish an army, the defense questioned if Chan had ever said he wanted to be the leader of such a government. Chan in court stated, “I had no such intention.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interjected, saying the defense was not asking about his intentions, but whether he had ever made such a statement; Chan responded, “I would say no.” The defense further asked if Chan had ever mentioned being responsible for an army, and whether the Israeli army could train the valiant? Chan denied this.

11:00 Chan’s legal team sends a letter to the Department of Justice to discuss becoming a witness in exchange for dropping some charges

The defense pointed out that afterwards, Andy Li had reported his safety to Chan, which Chan confirmed. The defense also mentioned that at that time, Chan Tsz-wah communicated on Telegram with a person named Harrison Chan (陳世德), who said he could provide financial and transportation support, as well as a safe house. In court, Chan Tsz-wah stated that Harrison Chan directly offered all the aforementioned support. Chan Tsz-wah then relayed this information to Andy Li and gave him Harrison Chan’s contact details. Chan also confirmed under questioning that he had discussed Andy Li’s departure from Hong Kong with a person named Cap, who had offered to help. During the questioning, Chan confirmed that Cap had offered to arrange fishing gear and a boat for Andy Li, with the fishing gear to be used as a disguise; later, Li told Chan that he had contacted Cap and arranged to leave.

The defense then asked if Chan had reminded Li to surrender upon arrival in Taiwan. Chan said, “I don’t remember if it was me who said that.” The defense asked if Chan had informed Li that, after being released by Taiwan, Li would need to follow a Czech government plane to the Czech Republic. Chan said no. The defense also asked if Li had contacted Chan when he was preparing to board the boat to leave Hong Kong. Chan confirmed there had been contact.

The defense then displayed a letter written by Chan Tsz-wah’s legal team to the Department of Justice on May 7, 2021, stating, “We write to explore the possibility of whether the prosecution would consider to drop or discontinue Charge(2) on the condition that our client pleads guilty to Charge(1) and be Prosecution Witness or assist the Prosecution in future relevant case.” The Department of Justice replied on May 21, agreeing to Chan Tsz-wah’s proposal, and the charge of assisting a criminal was filed in court.

10:30 Chan confirms he attempted to arrange a safe house for Andy Li

The transcript shows that Chan told the police, “On the first day he (Andy Li) went for bail, he called me through Telegram asking if there was a boat that could take him from Hong Kong to Taiwan. He didn’t specify Taiwan, just to get out of Hong Kong, and he asked very clearly. I answered him very clearly, no.” Under questioning by Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang, Chan confirmed that he had Telegram phone contact with Li on that day, but did not mention arranging a boat for him to leave Hong Kong. Chan said that in subsequent conversations with Li, they discussed Li leaving Hong Kong, but it was not about smuggling. Chan mentioned that Li had inquired about arrangements to leave Hong Kong, but at that time “I didn’t tell him I could do it.”

The defense then asked if Chan later told Li that he would arrange a boat for him to leave Hong Kong. Chan said no. The defense further asked if Chan had said he would assist Li in leaving Hong Kong. Chan denied it, but mentioned, “I introduced someone to him.” The defense questioned whether Chan had in fact made arrangements for Li to leave Hong Kong, to which Chan confirmed he had.

During questioning, Chan recalled that during their first phone contact, Chan mentioned, “needs a place to stay, he said he needed a safe house, then he said he was pulled,” Li indicated that “everything on his phone was exposed, he feels I should leave,” and that Li also needed support. Chan said at the time he would see “if there was anyone who could help him.” The defense asked if Chan had said at the time he would see if he could arrange a safe house for Li. Chan responded, “I never said that.”

The defense displayed a transcript from a recorded meeting on April 30, 2021, after Chan decided to become a prosecution witness, showing Chan said, “After we talked on the phone that day… we were in contact, then he (Li) mentioned, I reminded him that ‘no matter what, he (Li) might already be followed by the police… anyway, he should be careful,’ and he also told me, ‘he doesn’t want to go back home, wants to see if there are any safe houses like that,’ then I said okay. I’ll ask around, arrange something like that.”

Chan confirmed that at that time he told Li he would try to arrange a safe house for him, discussed anti-tracking techniques, and later contacted someone named Kyle on Telegram, who said he could provide a safe house, then passed Kyle’s contact information to Andy Li.

The defense showed the recorded meeting transcript, “Andy Li was very concerned about the safe house, so he said he could provide a safe house for him, in Tseung Kwan O, so I just passed this contact method, and this person then passed it to Andy Li.” Chan confirmed and noted that he provided the location of the meeting with Kyle to Li, but no longer remembers the exact location of their meeting.

10:10 Chan confirms that stating “did not assist Andy Li in leaving Hong Kong” during the recorded meeting was a lie

Defense barrister Marc Corlett from New Zealand continued to cross-examine Chan Tsz-wah. The defense referred to earlier statements that, according to Andy Li’s testimony, after being released on police bail, he had telephoned Chan, who said he would arrange for him to leave Hong Kong; previously, the defense asked Chan about this, and Chan testified in court that there had been no phone contact between them. On Monday, the defense asked again if Chan’s courtroom response at that time was true or false? Chan initially countered, “Are you asking if I personally arranged for him to leave Hong Kong?” After the defense repeated the question and clarified, Chan indicated that his response at the time was true.

The defense displayed a transcript from a recorded meeting on October 11, 2020, after Chan’s first arrest. It showed Chan responding to the police: “I did not assist Andy Li in leaving Hong Kong. He had asked if there was a boat that could leave Hong Kong. My response to him at that time was that I had never been involved and I also did not believe that any boat could successfully reach Taiwan.” The defense asked if Chan’s statement at that time, “I did not assist Andy Li in leaving Hong Kong,” was true or false? Chan stated, “At that time, it was a lie,” admitting he had provided assistance for Li to leave Hong Kong.

The recorded meeting transcript also showed that Chan had told the police, “In the whole matter, after he (Andy Li) left, I did not financially support him at all, let alone assist him in leaving Hong Kong.” Chan confirmed in court that his statement at the time was false.

10: 04 Court Session begins

The Witness