Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” among other charges. The case continued its 99th day of hearing on Friday (29th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), with Lai appearing for the seventh day of testimony.

During questioning by the defense on Friday, Lai reiterated that his meeting with Laam Chau’s Finn Lau in Taipei was merely intended to persuade Lau to use his influence to calm the violence among militant groups. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if international support or lobbying was discussed during Lai’s meeting with Lau. Lai responded no and further emphasized under defense questioning that he had no plans to groom Lau or anyone else as a political celebrity, stating he “never had such a crazy idea.”

Lai further explained that he aimed to form a leadership team through the “Laam Chau” group to regulate actions, emphasizing that he did not want Lau to become the leader of the valiant factions but rather hoped that he would influence them to quell violence through the leadership team.

The case is presided over by High Court judges appointed 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, 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.

15:53 Lai Denies Ever Stating “He Would Continue to Call for Sanctions Across Various Media”

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai said during their meeting that the National Security Law was “all bark and no bite… he will be fine, and then he said he would lead by example, continuing to call for sanctions and maintain focus across various media,” Lai called this statement absurd, asserting he never mentioned sanctions.

Chan also stated that Lai directed other members of SWHK to “continue their work” in propaganda and international efforts, as well as to support the primary elections. The defense asked if Lai instructed SWHK members to continue their activities. Lai denied this, stating he does not know SWHK. The defense then asked if Lai wanted SWHK members to support the primaries.

Lai also denied that the meeting discussed the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) or assistance to young Hong Kong protesters. Lai mentioned that the meeting lasted only about an hour because he was very busy.

15: 30 Break

15:10 Lai Denies Claiming That an English Version Would Turn Apple Daily into an International Media; States It Was Merely an Aspiration

Regarding their sixth meeting at the Next Media Building, Lai stated he met Chan in the VIP room, which was the usual spot for their lunchtime meetings.

In a message to Lai, Chan said, “There are a lot going on. I would love to catch up.” The defense asked what they discussed during their meeting at the Next Media Building. Lai noted that Chan mainly talked about Finn Lau being severely attacked on the streets of London, believing it was orchestrated by the Chinese government.

However, Lai believed that this was not typical of the Chinese government’s methods and thought Lau was likely just a robbery victim rather than a target of political assault. Besides this, no other significant topics were discussed. Lai recalled that when Chan mentioned Lau, Lai commented that while other allies were confronting the police on Hong Kong’s front lines, Lau stayed in London and was not an “effective leader” as he was “away from harm.”

The defense queried if Lai, who thought Lau had potential leadership qualities during their meeting in Taipei in January 2020, had doubts about his leadership abilities by June? Lai explained that his comments were context-specific at the time.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked Lai about his statement that Lau was not an “effective leader,” although Lai had previously stated there were no leaders. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also asked if, being in the UK, Lau actually had no role in the Hong Kong movement. Lai mentioned that it was only in response to Chan bringing up Lau’s leadership.

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai mentioned “Apple Daily continually incurs losses,” Lai said it was possible as the company was experiencing losses at the time. Lai also denied ever stating that “a significant amount of funds is needed to operate the English version of Apple Daily,” because running the English version required very little money.

Chan claimed that Lai had said, “If Apple Daily had an English version, it could directly and quickly provide first-hand information for the ‘people under the table’ abroad,” enabling them to make more favorable political judgments for Lai. Lai denied ever making such a statement, asserting he would not use the term “people under the table” and emphasizing that “a newspaper is public, open to everyone, not just the people he described as under the table.”

Chan also claimed that Lai said the English version could transform Apple Daily from a local media outlet into an international one with greater global influence and attention. Lai stated that the English version of Apple Daily had only been launched for two weeks at the time, and he would not make such a statement; if he did, it was only as an aspiration. Judge Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had indeed made the aforementioned comments. Lai said he did not remember but emphasized that if he had, it was merely aspirational and not a statement of fact.

15:00 Lai Describes Chan Tsz-wah as Sensitive, Preferring Low-Profile Meetings to Avoid Exposure

Regarding the sixth meeting between Lai and Chan on June 16, 2020, Lai stated that Chan initiated the meeting. Lai planned to pick him up at Pacific Place in Admiralty, where Chan’s office was located, and then proceed to the Next Media Building. The defense asked why Chan told Lai, “For security purposes, it’s probably best for me to jump in the car elsewhere”?

Lai did not know and had not asked further at the time. The defense noted that during their second meeting at Lai’s residence, Chan had also asked Lai, “Is there any way to avoid the reporters outside your house?” Lai agreed, acknowledging that reporters often gathered outside his residence. The defense asked if, therefore, during their sixth meeting, Chan was also concerned about reporters outside the building? Lai humorously clarified that the concern was about reporters inside the Next Media Building office, not outside.

The defense inquired if there were no reporters outside, why hadn’t Lai asked Chan to explain what the security reasons were? Lai speculated that Chan also wished to avoid contact with the Apple Daily reporters inside the building, hence his request to enter through the back door instead of the main entrance. The defense asked if there were any reports involving Chan Tsz-wah in June 2020. Lai believed there were none, thinking Chan wanted to avoid exposure.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked how Lai knew Chan wanted to avoid reporters; was it known through conversation? Lai replied it was not from a conversation, but he sensed that Chan was sensitive. During their second meeting en route to his residence, Chan had requested to sit in the back seat and keep his head down.

14:40 Lai Confirms Hope for Trump to Use Sanctions to Block the National Security Law

The defense displayed a message from May 28, 2020, where Chan sent Lai a link regarding the United States’ response to the impending National Security Law in Hong Kong. Lai replied, “Just saw it. More draconian sanctions are coming from Trump, hopefully this weekend. Cheers. Jimmy”.

The defense asked what “more severe sanctions from Trump” meant. Lai indicated he hoped that Trump would make efforts to prevent the National Security Law from taking effect. When asked how, Lai said through sanctions. The defense further inquired about his thoughts at that time, and Lai reiterated that the sanctions were against China. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why he used “more” severe sanctions? Lai responded that it was because the National Security Law was imminent, making the situation more pressing and severe.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further asked if the governments of China and Hong Kong had already been sanctioned at that time. Lai said no. Lee then asked why there was a need for “more severe sanctions”? Lai stated that he only used “more” as an emphasis. The defense asked whether “hopefully this weekend” was his hope or if sanctions were indeed going to be implemented then? Lai stated it was his own hope.

The defense questioned how sanctions could prevent the passage of the National Security Law. Lai explained, “That’s the only possibility, so I said it was my hope.” The defense asked what Lai meant by “more severe sanctions”? Lai reiterated that he was just emphasizing that there were no sanctions yet, and “severe” meant measures “more damaging” to China.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai’s use of “more severe sanctions” implied that there were already “severe sanctions”? Lai clarified, “I just meant it for emphasis, I absolutely didn’t know about any upcoming sanctions.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai’s “hope” referred to hoping for the sanctions to arrive? Lai agreed. The defense further questioned if Lai hoped the sanctions would come over the weekend? Lai agreed.

On the same day, a message showed Chan sending Lai a link from LIHKG titled “[Breaking] After Laam Chau, comes the dawn! Laam Chau Team’s ‘Reignite Hong Kong Project’ crowdfunding goes live!”, to which Lai replied, “Will look at it when I have time later.” In court, Lai stated that he ultimately did not look at the content of the link because he was not interested in crowdfunding, guessing that Chan was just providing him some information.

The defense pointed out that the link was unrelated to Chan’s role in calming violence? Lai said that although he had provided transitional loans, he had never discussed this with Chan and reiterated that he did not know why Chan mentioned crowdfunding to him.

14:31 Chan Tsz-wah’s Message Says “There’s No Turning Back”; Lai Believes It Means Persistence in the Movement

Regarding Lai’s forwarding of a Hong Kong 01 link about the impending enforcement of the National Security Law to Chan Tsz-wah on May 21, 2020, and his comment, “Shit has hit the fan! You were right!”, the defense also displayed that Chan Pui-man sent the same link to Lai on the same day, to which Lai had responded similarly.

The defense asked if Lai sent the same message to both individuals. Lai indicated that the message did not specify it was forwarded. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai was unsure whether the message “Shit has hit the fan! You were right!” was a forwarded one? Lai replied that since it wasn’t specified as forwarded, he did not know how to answer, and he didn’t remember if he had read the content of the link at that time.

Following Lai’s sending of the Hong Kong 01 link to Chan Tsz-wah, Chan replied to Lai, “Martin taught me that “cometh the hour, cometh the man.” There is no turning back for me and I do have a sense of duty to conserve our forces as much as possible. I won’t give up too. If all of you fall. I will be the last man standing. The best is yet to come”

The defense asked what Chan meant by “There’s no turning back.” Lai believed it meant Chan intended to persist in the movement. The defense then asked what Chan meant by “our forces.” Lai thought it referred to Chan himself and his comrades, including the valiant factions and the youth.

13: 04 Lunch

12:50 Lai Confirms Commitment to ‘Stay in Hong Kong and Face’ the National Security Law

The defense referenced a message sent by Lai to Chan on May 21, 2020, before the implementation of the National Security Law, linking to a Hong Kong 01 report titled “[01 Exclusive] The NPC to Announce ‘Hong Kong Version of the National Security Law’ Tonight, Addressing National Security Loopholes, Different from Article 23.”

Jimmy Lai: “There’s a press conference at 9:45 tonight, will know more then. Shit has hit the fan! You were right!”
Chan Tsz-wah: “Mr. Lai: At this point, the situation has become irreversible. My only concern is for your safety, and that of Martin and your family. Please prioritize your personal safety and the survival of your career.
The National Security Law mainly targets valiants within and outside the territory, advocates of Hong Kong independence, and those inciting the masses. You must be careful. Wayland”
Jimmy Lai: “Wayland, let’s not worry about personal security. Once you’ve come out to join the fight for freedom, you’re prepared to fight to the last. We may not win, but we must persist. Don’t worry. Better days will come. Cheers. Jimmy”

In court, Lai noted that the implementation of the National Security Law was imminent at that time. The defense further inquired why Lai thought Chan would be affected by the National Security Law. Lai responded that it was because Chan was involved in protests and resistance activities.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked, considering the law primarily targets three types of people, including valiants, advocates of independence, and those inciting the masses, and since Lai does not consider himself a valiant or advocate of independence, why would Chan think Lai needed to be concerned about the National Security Law? Lai stated he did not know. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios then asked if Lai considered himself someone who incites the masses. Lai denied this, saying he hadn’t thought much about the issue, focusing instead on Chan’s concern for Martin Lee, himself, and his family, not paying much attention to other content mentioned.

Regarding Lai’s response in English, “We should not worry about personal safety; once we’ve come out to join the fight for freedom, we are prepared to battle to the end. We may not win, but we must persist,” the defense questioned if Lai truly believed this at the time. Lai confirmed it. When asked if his thoughts remained unchanged after the National Security Law, Lai confirmed, but noted that methods must adapt to changes in the law.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked why, given Lai did not fit the profiles Chan described, he didn’t directly respond by telling Chan not to worry, stating the law did not apply to him? Lai replied, “Because I was not thinking the same way you think. You’re putting words in my mouth).” Lai emphasized that he was not overly concerned with the categories of “valiants or advocates of independence” that Chan mentioned; Chan was mainly concerned about the safety of Martin Lee, himself, and his family, and advised Chan not to worry about his personal safety.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired if Lai’s intention to continue what he was doing under the National Security Law was still his mindset at that time. Lai responded, “I would persist to stay in Hong Kong and face it.”

12:30 Messages Show Chan Tsz-wah Requested Meeting with Audrey Tang Through Lai; Lai Unsure of Reason: Possibly to Meet a Legendary Figure

The defense displayed a message from May 21, 2020, between Lai and Chan, where Lai forwarded to Chan: “Yu-hsin, long time no see, how are you? The youth camp of the anti-authoritarian movement wants to contact Audrey Tang and the Chinese Culture Association. They will come to Taiwan to meet them. Please see if you can arrange this. Thanks. Lai.”

The defense asked who “the youth camp of the anti-authoritarian movement” referred to in the message. Lai indicated it was Chan Tsz-wah, who wanted to meet Audrey Tang, then a minister without portfolio in Taiwan’s Executive Yuan, hence he forwarded the conversation between his secretary and Taiwan’s Apple Daily president Chen Yu-hsin to Chan. The defense asked why Chan, responsible for calming valiant violence, wanted to meet Audrey Tang. Lai said he did not know and hadn’t asked.

Lai noted that at the time, Audrey Tang was sensational because of her software development that helped stop the spread of the pandemic and also mentioned she is a transgender woman. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan was interested in the pandemic spread? Lai replied he didn’t know, “maybe he wanted to meet somebody who was a legend at that time.”

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai asked Chan if he wanted to meet with Taiwanese officials, Digital Minister Audrey Tang, and people from the Chinese Culture Association to develop a “Taiwan line,” Lai said he didn’t know why Chan would connect Tang with politics, as she was just a tech genius unrelated to protests or political movements. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai knew what the Chinese Culture Association was. Lai stated it was not a political organization, and its president was his friend, Chiang Chun-nan.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if the Chinese Culture Association was involved in Hong Kong matters. Lai stated no, reiterating he was just helping Chan and was unaware if Chan and Tang eventually met.

12:15 Lai Confirms Forwarding Message from US Consul General to Chan, Discussing US Concern Over Escalating Protest Violence

In court, the defense displayed a message dated April 5, 2020, between Lai and Chan, where Lai forwarded a message from the former US Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau, James B. Cunningham , which he had received. The message mentioned the US government’s concern about American journalists being expelled from Beijing, Hong Kong, and Macau. This issue was set to be a focus in the upcoming “Hong Kong Report,” with current news dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact on the US.

The defense questioned why Lai forwarded this message to Chan. Lai replied that it was simply to provide him with some information. The defense noted that Lai had not contacted Chan for a month prior to sending this message in April and that Lai claimed his intention was to encourage the valiant factions through Chan to calm the violence. Why did he think this message would be useful to Chan? Lai responded that it wasn’t about the usefulness of the information, but he thought Chan would be interested in the content.

The forwarded message also mentioned, “I was told the US is very concerned about new violence from demonstrators, increased threats from bombs/IEDs.”

When asked by defense if the mention of violent protests was why Lai sent the message to Chan, Lai agreed. The defense pointed out that Lai’s message concluded with a reminder to Chan not to share this information with others because it was confidential. Lai clarified that it was James Cunningham in the message who indicated not to pass it on, and Lai believed it wasn’t meant just for him.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired whether Cunningham also sent it to Mark Simon, as the message mentioned, “Mark, we can discuss next week if you have time.” Lai suggested that it might have been sent to Mark Simon as well. The defense asked if Lai and Cunningham, along with Mark Simon, were part of a WhatsApp group, and whether Lai received the message through this group. Lai said he didn’t remember.

The defense further questioned what Lai expected Chan to do after receiving the message. Lai stated, “To be aware that the US was concerned about violence, increased violence.”

Regarding Chan’s claim that after receiving the message, he wanted to forward it to Andy Li and Finn lau, so he called Lai to ask if he could share it with them. Lai said it was okay not to copy and paste the whole thing but to discuss the contents with them. Lai stated he didn’t receive a call from Chan and didn’t remember if Chan asked his permission to forward the message.

Lai noted that in April 2020, he did not know Andy Li and did not recall if anyone in Hong Kong was arrested for placing bombs or IEDs at that time.

11:24 Break

11:15 Lai Denies Transferring Company Account to Chan for International Advocacy; Believes Chan Couldn’t Open an Account and Was Assisted Out of Goodwill

In relation to Andy Li, Lai stated that he only became aware of him when Li was arrested by the Chinese coast guard. The defense mentioned that on August 10, 2020, the same day Lai was arrested under the National Security Law, Li was also arrested for colluding with foreign forces. The defense asked if Lai was aware of Li’s arrest at that time. Lai said no.

The defense also noted that Li was arrested in Chinese waters on August 23 of the same year, and Lai only became aware of Li then? Lai agreed, saying he read about it in the newspapers but was unaware that both were involved in the same case. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang further inquired if, after Lai’s arrest, the police mentioned Andy Li during their meetings. Lai said no.

Regarding Chan’s claim that he informed Lai about Andy Li “handling the Japan line,” Lai denied this in court, stating he had never heard anything related to Japan, did not speak Japanese, had no contacts in Japan, and was unaware of any Japanese interest in Hong Kong’s movements and situations.

Chan previously claimed in a call that the “US line” was led by Finn Lau, Andy Li, and Shirley Ho, and “there were some disagreements with local Hong Kong organizations, so at that time, I wanted Jimmy Lai to mediate.” Upon hearing this, Lai was supposed to have directed him to contact Mark Simon. Lai denied this in court, stating Chan never informed him of such internal matters, nor would he mediate as he didn’t know any of the parties involved, nor had he ever instructed Chan to contact Mark Simon.

Regarding Chan’s claim that Lai transferred his British Virgin Islands (BVI) offshore company, Lacock, to him as a “reward,” with the transfer occurring on January 14, 2020, Lai believes that Chan might have been in touch with Mark Simon, but he was not aware of the details. He thought Chan indicated he could not open a bank account, hence the transfer. As for the company account’s existing HK$80,000, Lai stated that Chan should return the money to him.

The defense asked if these were rewards given to Chan for his help in international lobbying and for requesting foreign sanctions. Lai denied this, stating it was not a reward, and Chan had not asked him to do anything; he reiterated that it was not his idea to transfer the company to Chan, believing it was decided by Mark Simon. Since Chan could not open an account, Mark Simon kindly offered assistance. Mark Simon asked Lai to sign documents, and Lai agreed, thus signing the transfer documents.
The defense then referenced a document Chan sent to Lai in February 2020 titled “IMHK_Press Release,” which mentioned that “Imagine Hong Kong is currently hosting a multimedia exhibition, unlike previous exhibitions and promotional displays, this exhibition focuses on frontline protesters.” The defense asked if Lai was familiar with the “Imagine Hong Kong” organization at that time. Lai said he did not know it, mentioning that Chan wanted him to fund a newspaper exhibition, which he ultimately agreed to support with approximately HK$100,000. Regarding the reference to “frontline protesters” in the document, the defense asked if Lai was aware that the exhibition was related to valiant factions. Lai said he hadn’t given it much thought, noting he was also unaware of the SWHK organization in 2020.

11:00 Chan Tsz-wah Messages Lai About Primary Election List; Lai: I Don’t Care and Am Not Involved in the Primary

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios noted that on February 26, 2020, Chan Tsz-wah messaged Jimmy Lai on WhatsApp:

“Chan Tsz-wah: Demosistō Alliance: Confirmed plan. They are not bound by primary. New Territories West: Eddie Chu New Territories East: Stand News Sister (Ah Lam) Kowloon East: Joshua Wong (Plan B: Leung Hoi-ching) Kowloon West: Sunny Hong Kong Island: Nathan Law Super Districts: Lester Shum
Jimmy Lai: Thanks. We’ve to work on them. But if the primary has legitimacy, they will have to join. Let’s see.
Chan Tsz-wah: I will try my best to work on it. At least not to let them ruin it.
Jimmy Lai: Yes, we all have to work on it. Thanks.”

The defense asked why Chan would mention the primary to him at that time. Lai thought it was to inform him who was not bound by the primary rules. Remedios further inquired why Chan mentioned needing to “work on” this matter. Lai said he didn’t know and did not recognize these people.

Regarding Lai’s reply, “We’ve to work on them,” he clarified that “they” referred to the overall pro-democracy camp. The defense then asked if Lai had ever conversed with the individuals mentioned in the message. Lai said he never had. Under questioning, he stated that he did not know Eddie Chu or Ah Lam (Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam) personally, knew of Joshua Wong and Sunny Cheung, and would only greet Nathan Law and Lester Shum during meetings but was not familiar with them.

The defense further inquired if Lai had persuaded anyone to participate in the primary in early 2020. Lai said he did not care about the primaries and had never talked to any participants. The defense also asked if Chan was involved in the primaries. Lai stated that since Chan messaged him about it, it was clear he was involved, as Chan mentioned he would try his best to handle the matter.
The defense brought up whether Lai was aware that the primary occurred after the implementation of the National Security Law in July 2020. Lai reiterated that he wasn’t involved in the primaries and thus couldn’t answer (I wasn’t on that issue, I really couldn’t answer you.). Lai reiterated that he had never been involved or aware of the primaries.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned at the time, “Apple Daily had numerous reporting on the primary. And if I remember correctly, of course I’m not taking any judicial notice but Apple Daily was one of the platforms to be used for organizing elections. How could you say that you were not aware of it?” Lai clarified that he was aware of the primaries taking place but did not recognize the candidates.

Remedios asked why Chan would suddenly discuss the primaries in a message and whether they discussed it during their meeting. Lai said no, believing Chan thought the primary was important, hence informing him and providing new information.

10:45 Lai Denies Discussing International Strategy with Chan via Phone

Regarding Chan’s claim that after a meeting with Finn Lau and Andy Li, he called Jimmy Lai via WhatsApp Call, with Lau and Li agreeing and supporting following Lai’s actions on the international front, and informing Lai that Li would “handle the international line,” Lai countered that it should be both Lau and Li handling it.

Lai denied receiving any WhatsApp Call from Chan and mentioned that he only knew of Andy Li from newspaper reports and realized in court that “Andy” was Andy Li. He pointed out that if he had made a WhatsApp call to Chan, there would be a record of it.

In court, a message from January 2020 was displayed where Chan messaged Lai saying, “Hi Jimmy, I have some progressive updates for you – some good some bad. Thanks. Wayland.” Lai replied, “Can we talk on the phone?”

Lai initially stated that they did not speak, but later said he did not remember whether they had spoken. Regarding the “progressive updates” Chan mentioned, the defense asked what they were? Lai did not remember, but believed it was not related to the follow-up of their trip to Taipei, possibly referring to an incident where Lau was attacked in the UK.

Regarding messages on the 24th and 26th of the same month mentioning making a call, the defense asked if they eventually spoke. Lai did not remember, suggesting it was not an urgent matter; otherwise, the call would not have been postponed repeatedly.（There was no urgency, otherwise the call would not be delayed again and again.）

10:30 Lai Recognizes the Valiants View “Laam Chau Pa” as a Spiritual Leader

The defense asked if Lai had heard the term “spiritual leader.” Before Lai could respond, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interrupted, noting it was a leading question. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked Lai, “For him to have an influence on the Valiants, he must be looked upon as a leader, is that right?” Lai confirmed, “He is a spiritual leader. Yes, that’s how they view him.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai wanted Lau to be a leader or a key opinion leader. Lai clarified, “I don’t want him to become anyone in particular,” reiterating that he only wanted Lau to use his influence to organize the Valiants’ actions better. Judge Remedios inquired what Lai understood by “spiritual leader.” Lai stated that Lau was very influential among the Valiants.

Remedios asked, “Is the spiritual aspect religious?” Lai said no, emphasizing that Lau has many followers on “LIHKG.” Remedios then questioned if Lai had visited “LIHKG.” Lai responded that he had never been on “LIHKG” but learned about it from Apple Daily reports and colleagues. Remedios further inquired about the origin of the “spiritual” in “spiritual leader.” Lai mentioned that from Andy Li and Chan’s statements, he knew many young protesters followed him.

Additionally, according to Chan’s statement, Lai had expressed a desire to financially support political novices in the primaries. Lai stated that he never mentioned the primaries during the meeting in Taipei. The defense asked if the primaries were discussed during the dinner with Lee Wing-tat and others that night. Lai said the evening was just casual conversation, possibly mentioning the Taiwan elections, as Lee and others were watching.

The defense inquired if Lai had contacted Lau electronically after the meeting. Lai said no, mentioning that he had arranged for Lau and others to meet with former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Shih Ming-te, but Lai did not participate.

10:20 AM Lai Aims to Regulate Actions Through Leadership Team, Not Lead Valiants Directly

Lai stated his intention to organize actions through a leadership team within the “Laam Chau Pa” group, rather than leading the valiant factions himself. The defense asked if Lai had questioned whether Lau would run in the upcoming Legislative Council election. Lai said no, because Lau lives in London. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked how he knew this. Lai responded that Lau works in London. Remedios further inquired about the type of job. Lai explained that Lau had told him that he and former Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying both work as surveyors.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping expressed concern about how Lau could organize Valiant factions in Hong Kong from the UK. Lai maintained that despite being in the UK, Lau still wielded significant influence over the Valiants. Judge Remedios questioned if Lai was seeking a leader. Lai clarified, “I wanted him to form a group of leaders among the Valiants to direct and regulate their actions, rather than having them act spontaneously.”

Lai further noted, “I didn’t want him to become the leader of the Valiants, but rather to influence them, calming the violence through organizing a leadership team to make their actions more organized.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang sought clarification from Lai on the meaning of ‘leadership,’ asking if it involved some people managing and directing an action. Lai stated that young Valiants often act uncontrollably, hence the need for a leadership team. Lee probed whether this meant a person who actually leads the movement rather than merely an influencer. Lai emphasized that it was not about a single person but a team.

10:05 Lai: Meeting with ‘Laam Chau’ was merely to calm violence, no mention of international lobbying

Regarding Lai’s denial on Thursday of grooming ‘Laam Chau’ Finn Lau as a political star, on Friday Lai reiterated during the defense’s questioning that he never intended to groom Lau or anyone else into a political star, stating he “never had such a crazy idea.”
On January 8, 2020, Lai sent Chan Tsz-wah an article link from Apple Daily titled “Advice from a Friend (Luke de Pulford),” which included 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

Lai mentioned on Thursday that he thought the article was well-written and worth reading, so he forwarded it to Chan as a caution. On Friday in court, the defense asked if the first 4 points were about the “international line,” besides the 5th point, which mentioned avoiding violence. Lai stated it was about the international community. The defense questioned why Lai suggested Chan should read this article. Lai explained that since he was about to meet with Lau, he hoped to persuade him to calm the violence among the Valiant factions, believing the article would be useful to him.

The defense argued, however, that the issue was that the first 4 points were about gaining international support? Lai replied that he was only focused on the 5th point, which was that using violence would result in losing international support. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai mentioned international support or lobbying when he met with Lau. Lai stated that during the meeting at Lai’s residence in Yangmingshan, Taipei, he had forgotten about Luke’s article and therefore did not bring it up.

The defense pointed out that Lai claimed during his Thursday testimony that he did not mention “Andy” or “Andy Li” at the meeting, so did he mention Li’s Telegram name “RIP”? Lai said no. Lai also mentioned that after meeting with Lau and Chan, Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho came to have dinner. When he tried to introduce them to Lau, Lau immediately stood up and left, so he didn’t have dinner, only Chan and a woman accompanying him stayed to dine with Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho and his wife.

Regarding the dinner with Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho and his wife, Lai did not recall what was discussed during that time, but stated that international support or lobbying was not mentioned. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai’s meeting with Lau was only 1.5 hours? Lai confirmed that the main purpose of the meeting was to persuade Lau to use his influence to calm the violence of the Valiant factions.

The defense asked if Lai had a private meeting with Chan during that period. Lai denied this, explaining that Lau and another woman were present at the meeting, and during the meal, Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho and his wife were also there, and he did not tell Chan he would transfer a company to him, as he does not discuss private matters.

The Witness