Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” among other charges. The case continues on Day 98 in West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) On his sixth day of testimony, Jimmy Lai, under questioning by the defense, confirmed that on November 16, 2019, he sent a message to Chan Tsz-wah asking about the identities of the black-clad individuals, considering them somewhat “troublesome” and suspecting they belonged to the militant faction. Chan advised Lai to pay close attention to teams like “Dragon Slaying Brigade” “China Mobile,” and “Flashlight,” which he claimed were leading unacceptably violent escalations. Lai acknowledged only hearing of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” and was unfamiliar with the other squads.

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 at the High Court. 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 who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

16: 31 Court Adjourns

16:08 Lai denies ever saying to overthrow the central government, only hoping to reduce violence

Lai reiterated that he didn’t know “Lam Chau” was involved with the international line or how he commanded it. Regarding Chan’s statement that “Lai Jimmy said his generation might not realize this, and he hoped Lam Chau’s leadership with the ‘Lam Chau Team’ and the younger generation would take over,” Lai questioned in court, “Can the young people step out of the Chinese government’s sight?” adding, “I was not that mad to think about this crazy thing.”

When asked if Lai ever spoke of overthrowing the CCP, he denied it, saying overthrowing the CCP would be a significant event. He claimed he only wanted to reduce violence and peaceful protests to gain international support, making Hong Kong safe. When asked how it would be safe, Lai said it would prevent China from infringing on Hong Kong’s freedoms.

What kind of support was it? Lai described it as general support. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang expressed confusion, asking how international support could be obtained without international lobbying. Lai responded that he did not know Chan was involved with the international line and had always sought international community support. Lee Yung-teng further asked if Lai had requested Chan or “Lam Chau” to lobby internationally; Lai denied it, unaware of their involvement with the international line.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai was seeking international support through international lobbying. Lai said it was through peaceful, rational protests to gain international sympathy and support. When asked if, by his understanding, international support equated to international lobbying, Lai agreed, as both aim for the same goal.

What did Lai understand by international lobbying? Lai stated, “conduct our demonstration on the moral high ground, and people sympathize with us. I think that’s the greatest lobby we could have”

Lai emphasized that merely talking to politicians was ineffective; all Hongkongers also needed to stand on the moral high ground. “I think if we talk to the politicians without having all the Hong Kong people stand up in a moral high ground. It would be useless”

The defense ask if his meeting with Pompeo is a form of lobbying? Lai agreed, “Kind of.” When pressed if it was the type of lobbying he understood, Lai agreed, hoping Pompeo would speak out and support. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if it involved sanctions. Lai denied it but mentioned that the previous day in the program “Talking Zhongnanhai” he spoke of sanctions against officials suppressing Hongkongers, letting them know their actions have consequences.

16:00 Lai denies discussing how to achieve ‘implosion’

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai said, “It’s important to know more ‘under the table’ people, not just ‘above the table’ people like Rick Scott, Ted Cruz, Todd Young, who are connections the old pan-democrats already have,” Lai believes Rick Scott and Ted Cruz are ‘above the table’ people but never mentioned the international line.

Chan also stated that Lai said, “When everyone is young, you meet them. Ten years later, twenty years later, this low-rank official will become a high-rank official, and such relationships are very useful,” citing former Secretary for Administration Anson Chan and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Lai in court denied ever saying this, noting he wasn’t aware Anson Chan and Pelosi knew each other.

Additionally, regarding Chan’s claim that Lai wanted to achieve ‘implosion,’ Lai explained that “Laam Chau” mentioned China’s economy, and he commented that China spends a lot of money monitoring its people, which might exhaust resources. When asked why “Laam Chau” mentioned China’s economy, Lai said “Laam Chau” had some thoughts about China and brought up ‘implosion.’ Lai asked him what ‘implosion’ was, and “Laam Chau” replied it meant ‘China implosion.’

When the defense asked if they discussed how to achieve ‘implosion,’ Lai said they were not discussing how to achieve it, but “Laam Chau” anticipated economic problems for China.

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai said to combine parliamentary, overseas organizations, street force, international line, and businessmen, Lai responded, ” I think he had his own idea of putting word in my mouth..”

15:49 Lai denies intending to groom “Laam Chau” as a political star

The defense continued questioning about Lai’s meetings with “Laam Chau” Finn Lau. According to Chan, “Laam Chau” stated during the meeting that the “Laam Chau Team” started in the UK, organizing crowdfunding, election monitoring groups, and later working with the G20 team. Chan also mentioned that they had traveled to the US in December 2019 and “Laam Chau” added that they had held rallies and marches in Germany and Edinburgh. Lai categorically denied ever hearing such statements.

Chan claimed that Lai had asked “Laam Chau” why the crowdfunding was so extensive. Lai countered that he was unaware of “Laam Chau’s” involvement in crowdfunding, and if it was mentioned, it was only to say that the crowdfunding was successful. Upon hearing this, Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai was congratulating them? Lai clarified that he merely commented and did not mention any transitional loans he had made.

When asked who brought up the topic of crowdfunding, Lai said he did not know and also did not remember mentioning “Andy.” If “Andy” was mentioned during the meeting, he would have asked who that was, noting that he only learned from the court that “Andy” was Andy Li.

Regarding Chan’s statement that “Lai wanted to groom him (Lam Chau) as a political star,” Lai in court called it a fabrication. Lai said, “This is farcical because human nature is such a mystery to understand. What makes one happy? makes another unhappy? So to think about engineering one’s nature to be a leader is ridiculous.”

Lai added, “And also when you make him a leader, you also have to make the environment conform to him and then the environment is the result of many people’s interaction. Nobody can manipulate. So to think that you can actually groom somebody to be a leader I think either you’re ignorant or arrogant. It’s impossible.”

Lai concluded, “it’s impossible for me to say something stupid, you know ridiculous, farcical stupid”

15:08 Lai confirms two perceptions of “Laam Chau”: influential among radical youths and followed by the valiant faction

The defense summarized that up until late 2019, Lai had only two perceptions of “Laam Chau”: he had significant influence over radical youths and was followed by many in the valiant faction; Lai agreed. Lai also stated that he did not know what “Laam Chau” did, emphasizing, “My only purpose to seek his help was to be instrumental in forming a leadership group.”

Regarding the meeting on January 11, 2020, between Lai, Chan, “Laam Chau,” and a woman at Lai’s residence in Taipei, Lai said that “Laam Chau” arrived after 4 p.m. and requested to take a shower. They officially began the meeting around 4:30 p.m., mainly discussing the organization of leaders among the valiant faction. Lai mentioned that other topics were discussed that day but were not important, so he doesn’t remember them. When the defense asked if Lai had mentioned that China spends a lot of money to monitor its citizens, Lai said he might have had that thought at the time or might have mentioned it.

Lai stated that Chan must have spoken during the meeting but he doesn’t recall the content. He also said that Chan introduced the woman accompanying him, but he forgot her identity, describing her as having hardly spoken.

The defense asked what “Laam Chau’s” view was on Lai’s suggestion to organize leaders among the valiant faction. Lai replied, “I think he gave me the impression that he was receptive to it,” adding that “he is a man of few words and cautious.” He noted that during the meeting, they did not mention the “Laam Chau Team” or crowdfunding but might have discussed the district council elections.

When asked if there was any mention of a district election monitoring team, Lai said he was unaware of such a team. The defense questioned whether he had met with Luke de Pulford and Lord Alton in Hong Kong during that period. Lai agreed but said their meeting was only to discuss views on Hong Kong and added that it was likely arranged by Mark Simon.

Chan testified that on the same evening, he had dinner with Lee Wing-tat and his wife, Albert Ho and his wife, and Taiwanese pro-democracy activist Shih Ming-teh and his wife. Lai clarified that although Shih Ming-teh was originally supposed to attend the dinner, he ultimately did not come; only Lee Wing-tat and his wife and Albert Ho and his wife were present. Lai said they had arranged to have dinner at 6 p.m., and “Laam Chau” did not participate in the meal. In other words, his meeting with “Laam Chau” lasted about 1.5 hours.

14:50 Lai: International Support Does Not Equal ‘International Front’

On January 8, 2020, Lai sent Chan an article link from Apple Daily titled “Online Forum: Advice from a Friend (Luke de Pulford).” Chan replied, “I read it yesterday which helps me persuade the rest of the stubborn leaders.”

The article offered five suggestions:

1. Your campaigning isn’t directed at the international community.
2. Leaderlessness is great, but creates a problem of representation.
3. The international community needs to know what you want.
4. Don’t give up.
5. Think big in everything you do, especially those involved in violence.

The defense asked Lai if he sent the article to Chan before their trip to Taipei. Lai said it was unrelated to the Taipei trip; he just thought the article was well-written and did not recall sending it to others besides Chan. Upon questioning by Judge Alex Lee, Lai confirmed he had read the article.

The defense mentioned that during the trial, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked Chan who “the other stubborn leaders” were. Chan answered they were on the international front, those who wished to promote more radical ideas, including the “valiant” activists. In court, Lai said “the other stubborn leaders” referred to other valiant activists, reiterating that he never mentioned the international front to Chan.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if the article’s reference to seeking international support implied international lobbying. Lai denied this, saying Luke de Pulford was ensuring the movement avoided violence to maintain international support. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if “international community” as mentioned by Lai equaled the “international front” referred to by Chan. Lai clarified that “international front” meant international lobbying, while his reference to the “international community” meant “people internationally.”

The defense asked if Lai still believed Chan was part of the “conservative front line.” Lai agreed, stating his opinion had not changed, and added that he was unaware of any connection between Chan, “Laam Chau Pa,” and the international front, believing the article was merely intended to advise Chan. The defense further inquired why Lai suggested Chan read this article; Lai felt the article was important and worth reading.

14:31 Lai Denies Wanting to Lead the International Front; Describes Shih Ming-teh as a Revolutionary; Revolution Does Not Mean Violence

The defense questioned Lai regarding their fourth meeting. Chan had testified that Lai “wanted to lead the entire international front,” which Lai denied.

The defense asked how Lai understood the term “Laam Chau” (which translates to “mutual destruction” or “burning together”). Lai replied, “It’s like martyrdom. You know, sacrificing yourself to destroy the opposition.” He also confirmed that during that meeting, they discussed the upcoming meeting with “Laam Chau Pa” (a nickname for a pro-democracy activist).

The defense presented a conversation between Lai and Chan from January 6, 2020. Lai told Chan:

“I don’t know anyone who’s free for you to meet because it’s election time. If you want to meet Shih Ming-teh, a true revolutionary. I can arrange. He’s good to talk to about resistance techniques. Cheers. Jimmy.”

The defense asked if meeting with Shih Ming-teh was part of the plan. Lai explained that Chan wanted to meet some people and asked if Lai could introduce anyone. Lai mentioned that he knew Shih Ming-teh, noting that he is a renowned revolutionary figure in Taiwan.

When questioned why he wanted Chan to meet a revolutionary, Lai stated that Shih is a wise person whose insights could be valuable to Chan. He emphasized that revolution does not necessarily imply violence (“Revolutionary doesn’t mean violence”).

The defense then inquired about who Shih Ming-teh is. Lai responded that Shih did not hold any position at that time but was previously the chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and a leader opposing the Kuomintang (KMT). When asked whether Shih’s revolution involved violent or peaceful means, Lai said he didn’t have specific details or recall his full story but believed that revolutions in those times might have required violence. He noted that by the time of the case (2020), Shih was already elderly and “out of the picture.”

12:30 Lai Denies Claiming “Young People Are Grasping for a Voice”

Regarding the meeting between Chan and Benedict Rogers in the UK, the defense further questioned why Lai wanted Chan to meet Lord David Alton through Rogers. Lai stated that Lord Alton was committed to assisting with the BNO visa issues for Hongkongers, intending to help Hong Kong residents, and wanted to connect them with useful contacts in the UK, adding that Rogers was also interested in understanding the perspectives of the youth.

When asked if Lai knew what Chan was doing abroad, Lai expressed unawareness, stating that he only hoped Chan would take advantage of his trip to the UK to meet useful individuals.

Concerning the fourth meeting between Chan and Lai on December 31, 2019, Lai initially could not recall the details of the meeting. However, upon reviewing their WhatsApp conversation which mentioned a “fruitful trip,” he believed he had arranged the meeting with Chan to discuss his UK trip and the upcoming meeting with “Laam Chau Pa.”

Justice Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios noted that the dialogue referred to “guest” instead of “Laam Chau Pa.” Lai explained that Chan wanted to keep the matter confidential, thus they spoke cautiously using “guest” as a substitute. When asked why secrecy was necessary, Lai responded that it was because he was a leader of the radical activists, a “sensitive person.”

Lai mentioned that the fourth meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and did not involve discussions on sanctions, as Chan had visited the UK, not the US. He added that sanctions are generally associated with the US, not the UK.

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai had said the international front was “very chaotic, with different voices, some advocating for Hong Kong independence” while others wanted to defend “one country, two systems,” and some advocated for sanctions or blockades of Hong Kong, Lai denied ever making such remarks and mentioned that he seldom uses the term “voice.”

12:15 Defense notes Mark Simon’s GOP affiliation; Lai: Only employed him for personal affairs

The defense questioned Benedict Rogers’s role, suggesting that according to the opening statement, Lai had requested sanctions through foreign “agents” or “intermediaries,” asking if Rogers was Lai’s agent. Lai denied this, stating he was unaware that Rogers was an advisor to IPAC and did not consider him a foreign agent. Regarding the former U.S. Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, James Cunningham, Lai also denied that he was an agent for the U.S. or any other country.

The defense then asked if Mark Simon was Lai’s agent. Lai jokingly said “he would be,” but denied he was an agent for the U.S. The defense noted that Mark Simon is affiliated with the Republican Party and asked if they had discussed GOP matters. Lai denied this, stating that Mark Simon only handled personal financial matters.

The defense inquired if Lai knew that Chan and Mark Simon knew each other. Lai agreed, stating that before he knew Chan, he was aware that the two knew each other due to advance payment for newspaper ads, though he could not recall the exact date.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping expressed confusion, questioning how Mark Simon could arrange a meeting with Pompeo if Lai had not discussed GOP matters with him. Lai responded that someone from the White House arranged the meeting with Pompeo through Mark Simon, who informed Lai that the White House wanted to meet him.

Still puzzled, Judge Toh asked, “Why would Mark Simon take you to meet Pence? Was it arranged by somebody else?” Lai answered, “because he’s my assistant.” Judge Toh thanked him for the clarification. Lai added that Christian Whiton, a senior advisor at the State Department, was not his agent but a paid consultant who helped him meet congressmen and senators.

11:28 Break

11:00 Defense probes Lai’s acquaintance with “Laam Chau” Finn Lau

The defense questioned Jimmy Lai about his acquaintance with “Laam Chau” Finn Lau. Lai stated, “After the incident at Polytechnic University, I strongly hoped that the valiants would establish a leadership team. I got to know ‘Laam Chau’ through the media. I have never read what he said, and I never knew what he said, but I knew that he had great influence on the valiants.”

When asked if Lai knew about “Laam Chau’s” role in the movement, Lai responded that he did not know specifics but was aware that many radicals followed him and he had significant influence. Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai had asked him to facilitate a meeting with “Laam Chau,” the defense asked why Lai thought Chan could contact “Laam Chau.” Lai mentioned that Chan had told him he knew “Laam Chau,” and Chan was a front-line leader.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping summarized, asking if Lai agreed that Chan should contact “Laam Chau,” but disagreed that he had ever requested Chan to handle international propaganda. Lai confirmed this, emphasizing that he never used terms like “propaganda” or “international line.” The defense displayed a series of WhatsApp conversations that mentioned Lai, along with Mark Simon and Chan, arranging a meeting with “Laam Chau” in places like Kyoto, eventually agreeing to meet in Taipei.

Lai noted that during their meeting, “Laam Chau” refused to reveal his real name, so he still did not know his actual identity after their meeting.

Regarding Chan’s claim that he met with Benedict Rogers, founder of “Hong Kong Watch,” while searching for “Laam Chau” in the UK, Lai explained that he wanted Chan to meet Rogers because Rogers had done a lot for Hong Kong. Rogers also had close relations with Lord David Alton of the UK House of Lords, and Lai believed the meeting would be beneficial, denying it was for an “international line.”

When asked if Rogers could be considered part of an “international line,” Lai responded, “Rogers cares about Hong Kong; you can see him as part of the international line since he works for Hong Kong’s interests in the UK.”

10:36 Lai denies support for localist factions, reaffirms opposition to Hong Kong independence

During their third car meeting on November 27, 2019, Lai mentioned the meeting lasted 20 minutes, and he had forgotten the discussion details. The defense referenced Chan’s testimony that he couldn’t contact the “radical” leaders, to which Lai responded that he could only trust Chan at that time, thus could neither agree nor disagree.

Chan also mentioned Lai talked about the “pan-democrats’ great victory,” suggesting it was possible since the district election results were unexpectedly positive. Chan claimed Lai said, “to sustain the anti-extradition law movement’s momentum, all movement forces must be united,” a statement Lai denied ever making. Further, Chan alleged Lai spoke of uniting street, parliamentary, and international efforts, to which Lai acknowledged the possibility of uniting street and parliamentary efforts but not international ones.

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai wanted to “blow up the government,” Lai denied this, emphasizing that through Chan, he sought to help the radicals establish leadership and regulate protests, which has always been his intent. Lai also mentioned he was unaware of Chan’s international contacts.

Chan stated Lai revealed a meeting with the young activist Sunny Cheung, which Lai confirmed, recognizing Cheung as a student leader from the University of Hong Kong, praising his well-written articles. Cheung had dinner with Lai along with several friends, who Lai believed were all radicals. Chan quoted Lai discussing crowdfunding with Cheung’s team, which Lai denied, stating “international line” and “crowdfunding” are not terms he commonly uses.

Additionally, Chan claimed Lai expressed a desire to support “local forces,” which Lai refuted, questioning how a brief conversation was portrayed as detailed by Chan. The defense clarified that Chan indicated the meeting lasted longer than 20 minutes. Lai stated, as he opposes Hong Kong independence, he would not support localist factions, and no discussions of sanctions, hostility, or blockades occurred, emphasizing his contact with Chan was aimed at quelling violence.

10:22 Lai confirms discussions with Chan about U.S. legislation, but clarifies it did not involve sanctions

The defense noted that besides discussing radical protesters on WhatsApp, Lai and Chan also discussed matters happening in the U.S., such as the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.” Lai explained that Chan, who was concerned about the Hong Kong protests, would bring up the act, but he himself was unclear about the specifics of the legislation. Judge Esther Toh asked what the act pertained to. Lai responded that it was related to the Hong Kong protesters.

When asked whether the legislation mentioned sanctions, Lai responded that it did not, stating, “It never came to my mind.” He also denied ever discussing with Chan his July 2019 trip to the U.S. to meet then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Additionally, Chan messaged Lai saying, “I’ve urged everyone to avoid trouble before the 24th.” Initially, Lai did not recall the specific date referred to, but when the defense mentioned that November 24 was the date of the district council elections, he remembered that Chan was referring to urging people not to disrupt the elections.

The defense asked if Lai believed Chan had the influence to urge people not to cause trouble. Lai affirmed this, noting that at the time, he considered Chan a leader among the radical protesters, which was why he had engaged with him. When further asked if he thought Chan belonged to the “frontline conservative” faction, Lai agreed, reiterating that Chan was introduced by Martin Lee and believed to have the capability to quell frontline violence.

10:10 Lai asked Chan about the identities of the black-clad individuals, stating in court that he thought they were “troublemakers”

The defense continued to inquire about Jimmy Lai’s meeting with Wayland Chan. They displayed a WhatsApp message from November 13, 2019, two days after their second meeting, in which Lai sent Chan a screenshot mentioning “HKDC” (Hong Kong Democracy Council). When asked if he knew what “HKDC” was at the time, Lai said he did not remember and does not know now.

In the conversation, “Rubio” was mentioned, and when asked who “Rubio” was, Lai mentioned he might be a senator. Lai explained that he forwarded the screenshot to Chan simply to share information, emphasizing that it was not meant specifically for Chan as he sent the same screenshot to others as well.

Regarding a message from November 16, Lai asked Chan, “Wayland, do you know who these black-clad people are? Thanks, Lai.” The defense queried why Lai would ask such a question. Lai responded that he thought the black-clad individuals were quite “mischievous” and suspected they were part of the radical protesters.

Chan’s reply was shown in court: “Hi Jimmy, please pay extra attention to: Dragon Slaying Brigade, Central Mobile (中移動）, Flashlight （閃燈）, V Squad, Viper （毒蛇）, Pink （粉紅）, Pink Team. These are leading unacceptable escalating violence. AppleDaily has interviewed three of them and the leader Max. He is presently leading the defense at PolyU.”

Lai mentioned he had only heard of “Dragon Slaying Brigade” and was unfamiliar with the other groups.

The Witness