Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, appeared for the 149th day of his trial on Tuesday (19th) at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court), as the prosecution continued its closing arguments.

The prosecution argued that Lai engaged in a series of actions such as launching the “One Letter, One Hongkonger to Save Hong Kong” campaign, which openly called for foreign intervention in Hong Kong affairs. They said he also pushed for an English-language edition of Apple Daily and directed that the “yellow” camp’s stance be prioritized without balance in reporting, in order to draw the attention of Western countries. Even after the National Security Law took effect, Lai knowingly continued to act in violation of the law, including giving interviews to foreign media to advocate sanctions, blockades, and hostile measures. Prosecutors said Lai was well aware of the international attention his words and actions received, and deliberately leveraged that attention to achieve his aims.

They further argued that Lai painted a false picture of China and the Communist Party after the National Security Law came into force, making claims such as “Hong Kong is finished” and encouraging the U.S. to revoke Hong Kong’s special status. Even if he did not explicitly call for sanctions, prosecutors said his remarks nonetheless amounted to a “request” for sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities under the charge of collusion.

Judge Says Counsel for Corporate Defendants Should Not Interrupt Prosecution’s Submissions

Before the hearing began, Jimmy Lai entered the dock and greeted spectators and family members with folded hands, smiling and nodding.

On Monday, when lead prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang stated that the corporate defendants did not dispute Lai was the companies’ “directing mind,” barrister Jon K.H. Wong, representing the three companies, immediately stood up to deny it. When the court resumed on Tuesday, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping said Wong should not have interrupted the prosecution, and noted that according to his own written submissions, Wong’s statement on Monday was incorrect. Wong acknowledged this and apologized in court.

Prosecution: Lai Launched “One Hongkonger One Letter” Campaign, Publicly Called for Foreign Intervention

The prosecution then continued its submissions, arguing that the conspiracy to collude involving Apple Daily began in April 2019. Lai and his co-conspirators allegedly took ongoing actions, including Lai’s lobbying trips to the U.S. in July and October 2019. Lai also promoted sanctions against China through his writings, and in May 2020 launched the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, publicly calling on then–U.S. President Donald Trump to intervene in Hong Kong affairs.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether this campaign explicitly called for sanctions. The prosecution replied it did not specify sanctions, but rather sought U.S. support and diplomatic pressure to rally the international community against China. Lee followed up: at the time, was launching such a campaign unlawful? The prosecution agreed it was not, since the National Security Law had not yet come into effect, but argued it demonstrated Lai’s continued participation in the conspiracy.

Judge Asks Whether Articles Calling for Withdrawal of the Extradition Bill Could Fall Under “Exculpatory Intent” in Sedition Charges

On the sedition charge relating to Apple Daily, the prosecution argued that the articles in question were baseless and unreasonable attacks, not rational criticism of the central and Hong Kong governments, nor—as the defense claimed—“critical opinions” offering suggestions or solutions.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked: if one writes a critical article on water issues, must it always propose solutions? The prosecution replied no, clarifying that this argument was only to counter the defense’s claim that the articles lacked seditious intent and merely sought to correct flaws in systems or policies.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang remarked: “This is a tricky situation,” noting that the articles in question called for the withdrawal of the Extradition Bill. “Isn’t that a solution?” The prosecution reiterated that much depended on the purpose of the speech. If the purpose was to defame the government, undermine public trust, or incite hostility toward it, then it constituted seditious intent.

Prosecution: Lai Dictated Content of English Edition to Attract Western Attention

Turning to the Apple Daily English edition, the prosecution argued that its direction aligned with Lai’s editorial strategy for the paper: to draw the attention of Western democracies in hopes they would act against the central government, including imposing sanctions on officials. When Lai messaged his aide Mark Simon, he expressed hope that U.S. political figures such as then–Vice President Mike Pence and then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would subscribe to Apple Daily. In other messages, Lai said the English edition should focus on China-related content and reflect the stance of the “yellow” camp, without balanced reporting or positive news about China. Lai also selected some of his own columns for inclusion in the English edition.

The prosecution added that when then–executive editor of the English edition Fung Wai-kong attempted to include other types of news, Lai messaged him that such reports were unnecessary. From this, the prosecution argued, it was clear Lai dictated the content of the English edition.

On Apple Daily’s editorials, the prosecution cited one titled Sanctioning Human Rights Villains is the Ultimate Cure, which called for sanctions on central government officials and stressed that “sanctioning Hong Kong’s human rights villains cannot be delayed.” Lai himself also admitted that the editorials represented the official stance of Apple Daily.

Prosecution: Lai Aware of Attention from U.S. Officials – Judge Questions Hearsay Evidence

The prosecution argued that Lai, together with other Apple Daily executives, continued a series of actions even after the National Security Law (NSL) came into effect, showing that the conspiracy was ongoing.

Turning to Lai’s conduct post-NSL, the prosecution said that in addition to his writings in his column and remarks on the Live Chat program, Lai continued to give interviews to foreign media, promoting sanctions, blockades, and hostile actions. Knowing that the international community was paying attention, Lai allegedly used that attention to advance his objectives. For example, Mark Simon once messaged Lai to say that a U.S. National Security Council staffer had read Lai’s article in The Wall Street Journal, showing that U.S. officials were paying attention.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interrupted, asking whether the prosecution could prove that Lai actually knew his remarks were drawing attention from U.S. officials, or whether he only knew because Mark Simon told him. The prosecution said both. Lee pressed further: did Lai know this as a matter of fact, or only because Mark Simon told him? He stressed that the court could not rely on hearsay evidence. The prosecution responded that aside from Simon’s message, it also had other direct evidence, such as a message from Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo to Lai.

Lee questioned whether that too was hearsay, adding: “It doesn’t become true just because 100 people tell you the same thing.” The prosecution maintained that taken together, multiple pieces of evidence could serve as circumstantial proof. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping added: was this background evidence showing Lai’s state of mind? The prosecution confirmed.

Prosecution: Lai Persisted Despite Knowing His Actions Violated NSL

The prosecution described Lai as insisting on “hold on and keep fighting” even after the NSL came into effect—for example, by deciding to keep Apple Daily running as usual, continuing to write his column, and speaking on Live Chat. This, prosecutors said, showed that Lai carried on despite knowing his actions violated the NSL.

The prosecution further argued that even after being remanded, Lai instructed senior staff to continue operating Apple Daily as before and not to shut it down on their own initiative, indicating his continued role in the conspiracy until the paper’s closure. As examples, prosecutors said Lai had, after the NSL, called for the cancellation of Hong Kong’s special trading status, for a technology embargo, and for the U.S. to raise non-trade issues in its dealings with China.

Judge Lee asked why references to canceling Hong Kong’s special status or asking the U.S. to consider non-trade issues should be considered sanctions, blockades, or hostile actions. The prosecution replied that foreign states should not interfere in another country’s internal affairs, and that any interference in China’s internal matters could be regarded as sanctions, blockades, or hostile acts. If human rights were made a precondition for trade, that would constitute interference in China’s internal affairs.

Lee followed up: would other non-trade issues—beyond human rights—also be treated as blockades? The prosecution said yes, arguing that considering any non-trade issue during trade negotiations would harm China’s economic interests, reiterating that trade should not involve non-commercial matters. Lee asked whether there was expert evidence to support this claim. The prosecution said its expert focused on U.S. law and could not comment on this aspect, but that it would rely on the ordinary meaning of “hostile actions.”

Prosecution: Lai’s Remarks Constitute a “Request” for Sanctions under Collusion Charge

The prosecution argued that after the enactment of the National Security Law, Jimmy Lai’s remarks made on his “Live Chat” program, in Apple Daily articles, and on Twitter amounted to a “request” for sanctions, blockade, or other hostile activities under the charge of collusion. Prosecutors said Lai falsely depicted China and the Communist Party (“having painted a false picture”) with the intent of persuading foreign countries to impose sanctions and punish China.

Judge Lee asked whether Lai needed to know that he was making false depictions, and whether prosecutors had to prove Lai deliberately made them. The prosecution said this was not necessary. They explained that although Lai did not openly or directly request sanctions after the National Security Law came into effect, when all his remarks and actions were considered together, they amounted to a “request.”

Judge Toh summarized the prosecution’s position: Lai disguised his “request” through the false depictions, and then called on foreign governments to intervene and punish China. The prosecution confirmed this interpretation.

The prosecution further stressed that Lai’s statements, such as declaring “Hong Kong is finished” and encouraging the U.S. to revoke Hong Kong’s special status, even without explicitly calling for sanctions, at the very least “naturally and reasonably” encouraged or persuaded the U.S. and other countries to impose sanctions on China and Hong Kong.