Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai stands accused of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” On Wednesday (20th), the case entered its 150th day of trial at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (sitting as the High Court), with the prosecution continuing its closing arguments.

Addressing the allegation that Lai conspired with the group Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), the prosecution argued that there is overwhelming evidence showing that Lai, in the role of “mastermind,” not only participated in the agreement but also encouraged his co-conspirators to persist in combining street actions, legislative efforts, and international lobbying. Far from stopping others from engaging in unlawful acts, Lai promoted their continuation.

The prosecution further described Lai’s testimony as unreliable. It noted that Lai, on the one hand, admitted that Apple Daily was an anti-communist, opposition newspaper aligned with the “yellow camp,” yet on the other hand portrayed the paper as “a neutral defender of Hong Kong’s core values.” Such statements, the prosecution argued, were entirely misleading, as Apple Daily’s stance bore no relation to the city’s core values. Lai was said to have blurred his own views with those of society at large. By using Apple Daily to call on foreign powers to punish China, the prosecution concluded, Lai had clearly betrayed the nation’s interests and security.

Prosecution: Lai Was Always Aware of SWHK’s Membership in IPAC

The prosecution continued its closing submissions on collusion allegations involving Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), outlining Jimmy Lai’s knowledge of both SWHK and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).

While Lai testified that he did not know SWHK or IPAC, the prosecution challenged this, arguing that Lai was always aware of SWHK’s participation in IPAC. It cited a June 2020 Apple Daily article titled “CCP Threatens the World; Lam Chau Group Joins International United Front in Resistance,” which stated that the “Lam Chau” team had joined IPAC’s central secretariat. Lai also admitted in court that he knew activist Finn Lau of the “Lam Chau” group was involved in international lobbying.

The prosecution added that when Lai met with “accomplice witness” Chan Tsz-wah in June 2020 at Next Digital headquarters, the two discussed both SWHK and IPAC. This, it argued, demonstrated Lai’s knowledge of SWHK’s connection to IPAC.

Prosecution: Lai Continued the Agreement after the National Security Law

According to the prosecution, Lai’s agreement with SWHK continued even after the implementation of the National Security Law. For example, Chan Tsz-wah once messaged Lai thanking him for his efforts in the pro-democracy primaries. Lai also never instructed Chan to stop engaging in international lobbying or calling for foreign sanctions.

The prosecution further noted that after the National Security Law came into effect, SWHK continued to issue press releases, open letters, and social media posts advocating sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials and their families, calling for the suspension of extradition agreements with Hong Kong, and urging the U.S. to implement the Hong Kong Autonomy Act.

The prosecution also said that SWHK participated in IPAC activities. For instance, “accomplice witness” Andy Li attended meetings with foreign legislators to discuss judicial cooperation treaties concerning Hong Kong. Shortly afterward, Canada announced the suspension of its extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

Prosecution: Lai Continued to Encourage International Lobbying after the National Security Law

The prosecution stressed that Jimmy Lai continued to encourage other conspirators to engage in international lobbying even after the National Security Law came into effect. For example, in May 2020, Lai sent a news link to Chan Tsz-wah, telling him that the law was about to be implemented and adding: “We should not worry about our personal safety. Once we step out to join the struggle for freedom, we must be prepared to fight until the end. We may not win, but we must persist.”

When the two later met at Next Digital headquarters, Chan remarked that they “should pull back,” but Lai dismissed the National Security Law as “thunderous but with little rain.” Lai said he would lead by example, continuing to call for sanctions through the media, and instructed Chan to have other SWHK members “keep going” with propaganda and international lobbying efforts, as well as support the pro-democracy primaries.

The prosecution argued that Lai knew at the time the National Security Law might include the offense of collusion, yet he persisted firmly with the agreement, continuing to call for sanctions. Lai also admitted he had never warned Chan nor told him to avoid violating the law.

The prosecution further noted that Lai continued to support SWHK and IPAC. Luke de Pulford, co-founder of IPAC, had sent Lai IPAC’s Twitter posts, showing that Lai was consistently aware of IPAC’s international lobbying activities. Lai’s own Twitter account also retweeted IPAC’s posts.

Prosecution: Lai Admitted Taking the First Two Steps of International Lobbying

Regarding Chan Tsz-wah’s testimony that Lai once described four steps of international lobbying during a meeting in Taiwan, the prosecution elaborated. According to Chan, the four steps were: first, to make foreign governments aware of what was happening in Hong Kong; second, to urge them to condemn and pay attention to events; third, to bring those foreign views back to Hong Kong so that Hongkongers would know “foreign governments have not abandoned or ignored them,” thereby boosting morale; and finally, to build relationships with “under-the-table people” to influence their China policy, drive sanctions, and even topple the Chinese Communist Party.

The prosecution said Lai admitted in his testimony that he had taken the first two steps, such as launching the English edition of Apple Daily and hosting the Live Chat program, and that he continued doing so after the enactment of the National Security Law. The prosecution also pointed out that Lai maintained contacts with “under-the-table people,” such as former U.S. Army’s Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and senior State Department adviser Christian Whiton, with whom he discussed foreign policy matters.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether the prosecution’s case was that after the Taiwan meeting with Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li, Lai reached an agreement under which Li would participate in international lobbying, and therefore Li’s involvement in IPAC was also part of the lobbying effort. The prosecution agreed.

Prosecution: Only Relying on Conspirators Named in Opening Statement

In response to the defense’s written submissions—that the prosecution had never alleged Jack Keane, Paul Wolfowitz, or Whiton were conspirators, and that even if they discussed foreign policy, it could not prove that SWHK and IPAC’s activities after the National Security Law came into force were based on an agreement with Lai, Chan, or Li—the prosecution argued the defense misunderstood. They said Lai was not only connected with Keane and others but also admitted to taking the first two steps of lobbying. The prosecution stressed that it relied only on the conspirators identified in its opening statement and was not alleging that Keane or others were conspirators. Judge Lee then asked: so regardless of whether Keane or Wolfowitz cooperated with the conspirators, as long as Lai’s instructions were carried out and the agreement executed, that suffices? The prosecution confirmed.

Prosecution: Lai Participated in the Conspiracy as the “Mastermind”

The prosecution cited further testimony from Chan Tsz-wah, who said Lai’s arrest dealt a severe blow to SWHK’s international lobbying, as they could no longer access U.S. internal information or rely on Lai’s political connections in America.

Summing up, the prosecution argued that overwhelming evidence showed Lai participated in the conspiracy as its “mastermind.” Not only did he fail to prevent other conspirators from using SWHK and IPAC to carry out unlawful acts, but he also encouraged them to continue following his instructions, combining street actions, legislative efforts, and international forces to carry out the four-step international lobbying strategy.

Prosecution: Lai’s Testimony Is Unreliable

The prosecution argued that Lai’s testimony was unreliable. For example, Lai had claimed that the Apple Daily’s core values were aligned with those of Hongkongers—such as rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion—and that therefore no editorial instructions were needed. However, Lai also admitted that the Chinese Communist Party was his “enemy,” that Apple Daily was an anti-communist and opposition newspaper, and that it held a “yellow camp” stance.

According to the prosecution, this evidence showed that Lai portrayed Apple Daily as “a neutral defender of Hong Kong’s core values,” which was entirely misleading. In their view, the paper’s stance had nothing to do with the core values of Hongkongers, and Lai was attempting to conflate his personal views with those of society.

The prosecution further contended that Lai used Apple Daily as a platform to solicit foreign powers to take punitive action against China, which they said was clearly a betrayal of national interests and security. As for Lai’s claim that he had become more cautious after the National Security Law came into force, the prosecution rejected this, saying it was untrue. They argued that after the law’s enactment, Lai continued to publish articles, post on Twitter, and give interviews that mentioned sanctions, maintained collaboration with foreign figures, and made no attempt to remove Live Chat episodes, Apple Daily articles, or Twitter posts.