Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is facing charges of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and other offenses. His trial resumed Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. It marked the 132nd day of proceedings, with Lai testifying for the 40th day and prosecutors continuing their cross-examination for the 14th day.

On Tuesday, prosecutors questioned Lai about Apple Daily’s coverage, arguing that many of the newspaper’s headlines in 2019 encouraged people to protest. They also presented messages in which Lai asked subordinates, including Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, to consider ways to call on citizens to take to the streets. Lai insisted this was not an editorial directive but a request to explore ways to encourage participation. When asked whether he urged people to join an anti-government movement, Lai said his opposition was specifically against the Extradition Bill.

The case is being heard by national security judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Special Duties) Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai’s defense team includes Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is also qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcript

16:32 Court Adjourns

16:10 Messages Show Lai Directed Mark Simon to Contact Foreign Officials for Apple Daily Subscriptions

The prosecution presented a May 12, 2020 conversation between Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon, where Lai outlined plans for the English version of Apple Daily:

“Mark, The English version of Apple Daily will made in a daily collection of News, Opinions, Features and interviews. It’ll be total of about 15 daily items with a weekly summary. These items are mostly translation versions of our existing daily adding a couple of opinion pieces by English writers to supplement our English version. I heard that there’re some writers are fallen out of the favor of SCMP, we may have them write for us. Please discuss this local English writers issue with Mark Clifford, you and he should know quite a few of them. And actually you and Mark can write a weekly column for the English newsletter. Please work on it and let me know. Thanks. Jimmy.”

Mark Simon replied:

“Will do so. I was in contact with Mary last night will navigate how we get Pompeo or his office to sign up.”

Lai responded:

“The main purpose of this English version besides giving Americans who want to support HK’s resistance movement an opportunity to subscribe to Apple Daily as one of the ways, is also to have political leaders like Pence, Pompeo or Rubio etc to subscribe to us as a political protection for Apple Daily, which is now the main focus of Chinese liaison office to subdue . Political support from outside to Apple Daily is my main concern here. Thanks. Jimmy.”

Mark Simon assured he would work on it, and Lai continued:

“Yes, Mary, Matt and Feith can be of great help in securing their leaders subscription. Chris and Jim can also help us to have politicians to subscribe. maybe even Paul and Jack can help. Paul is good friend of Barr, if Barr subscribes it’s be great for us too. Thanks. Jimmy.”

Mark Simon replied:

“I was discussing with Christian on how we approach offices and individuals to subscribe. Also spoke with Rubio’s guy Peter Mattis.”

Mark Simon further noted:

“Biggest issue is senior officials do not. cannot. put out their payment info. (Senior officials use alternative means, but never connected to transaction)”

Lai confirmed the identities of the individuals mentioned in the messages. He stated that Mary was Mary Kissel, a senior advisor to then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and that Simon had been in contact with her to request Pompeo’s subscription to Apple Daily. He identified Matt as Matt Pottinger, former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, but said he did not remember who Feith was. 

He acknowledged that Chris referred to Christian Whiton, Jim was former U.S. Consul General James Cunningham, and Paul was former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. When asked about Barr, Lai confirmed that it was a reference to then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr. 

The prosecution questioned Lai on Mark Simon’s statement about difficulties getting senior officials to subscribe. Lai agreed, adding that due to U.S. government restrictions, the plan never materialized.

The prosecution then presented a June 28, 2020 message from Lai to Mark Simon, where Lai wrote:

“Mark, It’s about time to get those biggies to subscribe to Apple daily English edition now so we can promote it in a couple of months’ time in US and England. Thanks. Jimmy BTW, Lucinda hasn’t contacted Kim Hung yet? Is she for real? Thanks. Jimmy..”

The prosecution asked if “Lucinda” was related to the Live Chat program. Lai said it was an internal staff issue. Reports indicate that Lucinda was among those who helped run the “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” program.

The prosecution also displayed a message from Mark Simon to Lai stating:

“Jimmy, Trump’s campaign is a disaster.”

Lai responded:

“But he’s known to be more disciplined and less narcissistic.”

The prosecution questioned why Lai described Trump as narcissistic. Lai replied that Trump often talked about himself.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang revisited a morning session discussion where Lai had told Chan Pui-man:

“We should find some students who signed the petition for interviews, to inspire others to come out on June 9.”

Judge Lee questioned whether Lai was referring to university students or secondary school students, as local secondary students had reportedly called for class boycotts at the time. Lai clarified that the petition referred to university students. 

Judge Esther Toh also pointed out that students from Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s alma mater, St. Francis’ Canossian College, were involved. Lai reaffirmed that the petition referred to university students and was unrelated to class boycotts.

15:54 Lai Denies Launching Apple Daily English Edition to Push for Sanctions

The prosecution presented a May 10, 2020 message from Jimmy Lai to Mark Simon, in which Lai stated:

“Mark, We’ve a very good idea. We’re starting an Apple Daily English Newsletter inside our app. Because now there is a translationx platform which does translation cheap and fast though we need to polish them, it saves 80% cost and time making English Newsletter formal possible.

There’ll be an icon to click in our app, there is an English Newsletter of important news, comments and special features. There’ll be around 10 high quality items including news daily, complemented by a weekly newsletter summary for readers. This gives us an opportunity to capture the support of Americans or foreigners who want to support HK, find supporting us is one of the ways to do it.

That would be tremendous financial and political support. Something we must do now especially as a political protection.

Please arrange media where we can have our English version promoted to American public, including my media interviews. But let’s not arrange now and wait till we have the quality of the contents worked out, then start the publicity engine. Thanks. Jimmy”

Lai confirmed that the English newsletter was the initial idea, which later evolved into an English news section. The prosecution noted that Christian Whiton had suggested launching an English-language print edition, to which Lai had responded that the cost was too high. However, in his message to Mark Simon, Lai mentioned that the online version would cut 80% of the cost and time. Lai clarified that Whiton’s proposal was for a print edition, whereas Mark Simon suggested an online version, which were two different things.

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s goal was to allow foreign or U.S. readers to access English news and understand what was happening in Hong Kong. Lai agreed and added that it was to garner support for Hong Kong. The prosecution then asked if that support included imposing sanctions on the Hong Kong government or taking hostile actions against it. Lai denied this, stating that sanctions were not part of the plan.

When asked what he meant by “political protection,” Lai responded that it was about protecting Apple Daily. The prosecution pressed further, asking what kind of protection he was referring to. Lai replied that he had not thought about it in detail, only in a general sense.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios then asked, “Why did Apple Daily need protection?” Lai explained that at the time, the environment was hostile toward the newspaper. The prosecution pushed further, asking why. Lai responded:

“Apple Daily is an opposition newspaper. And normally and naturally, the government environment is unfriendly to us.”

The prosecution challenged Lai, asking if this was just his assumption. Lai insisted that it was based on his understanding of Hong Kong’s situation at the time.

The prosecution then presented another message from Lai to Mark Simon, in which Lai stated:

“Mark, imagine if we could get [then-U.S. Vice President] Mike Pence to subscribe to the Apple Daily app! The publicity and respect it would command would generate massive support for us. I know this is almost impossible to achieve, but can we try? Thanks, Jimmy.”

Mark Simon responded:

“Let me work on it.”

The prosecution questioned why Lai specifically asked Mark Simon for help. Lai explained that Mark Simon was his assistant. The prosecution then asked why he did not ask other figures, such as Cheung Kim-hung or Simon Lee. Lai responded that Cheung Kim-hung was an Apple Daily executive, and Simon Lee was not his assistant.

The prosecution then suggested that Lai sought Mark Simon’s help because of his connections with the U.S. government. Lai denied this, stating that he asked Simon because he knew Simon was capable of handling the matter.

15:33 Break

15:22 Lai Calls Himself a Political Prisoner; Judge Warns Against Bringing Politics into Court

The prosecution presented a May 11, 2020 message from Cheung Kim-hung in a group chat, where he stated:

“Boss, after discussion, we have finalized the initial approach for the English newsletter… Every day, we will select a few articles from the editorial, op-ed, and columnist sections, as well as key resistance news and features of the day, translating or summarizing them for the daily newsletter. Every Sunday, we will compile a weekly version, including ‘A Laugh at Success and Failure’ and selected content from the past week. Ryan (Law Wai-kwong) is looking for translators, around 3 to 5 people.”

Lai responded:

“Okay, I just want to add that we need more translators…”

Lai claimed in court that he had overlooked this message at the time and was unaware that his own column articles were being translated into English.

Lai added:

“You have to understand, my articles being translated into English is not a crime. But lying in court is a crime. Do you think I would turn something legal into something illegal just to get myself convicted? That would mean I am not only a political prisoner but also an idiot.”

Judge Esther Toh interrupted, stating:

“You are not a political prisoner. You are facing criminal charges in this court.”

Lai replied:

“You can have your opinion, and I can have mine.”

Judge Toh responded:

“I am emphasizing this to you.”

Lai replied:

“You can advise me, but you cannot impose your opinion on me.”

Judge Toh stated:

“I am pointing out the truth to you. This is a criminal court, and this has nothing to do with politics.”

Lai responded:

“Whether or not you share the same view, this is the fact and the reality.”

Judge Toh raised her voice and warned:

“Mr. Lai! Are you trying to bring politics into the courtroom? You are not allowed to do that!”

Lai smiled and said:

“I see, I see.”

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios then questioned Lai, asking whether he intended for foreign politicians or foreigners to understand Hong Kong’s situation through him.

Lai responded that he meant through the English edition of Apple Daily.

Judge Remedios pressed further:

“So, through your political viewpoint on Hong Kong, people understand Hong Kong’s situation?”

Lai downplayed his influence:

“My opinion is not that important.”

Judge Remedios asked if Lai expressed his opinions through his column.

Lai replied:

“Yes, but my articles were in Chinese.”

Judge Remedios pointed out:

“But your column articles were translated into English?”

Lai claimed he was unaware.

Judge Remedios then asked if Lai believed his writings had a significant impact internationally.

Lai responded that he did not know.

Judge Alex Lee then asked whether Lai had noticed his articles being translated into English at the time.

Lai said he had not.

Judge Lee followed up:

“Did you never check the English version of Apple Daily?”

Lai admitted:

“I would glance at it.”

Judge Lee then referenced earlier testimony, where Lai had previously discussed with colleagues the insufficient number of English news articles.

Judge Lee asked:

“Yet today, you confirm that this is the first time you’ve learned in court that your articles were translated into English?”

Lai agreed.

15:15 Prosecution Questions Lai on Apple Daily English Edition’s Lack of Balance; Lai: It Had to Reflect Hong Kong’s Reality

The prosecution presented a May 10, 2020 message from Jimmy Lai in a group chat:

“When we choose writers we don’t have to think about giving foreigner a balanced view of what happens here of every different colors, we only concentrate in our Apple Daily HK view, a general view of the yellow side. In choosing further writers we need not choose Weijian shan, who’s a friend of mine and very popular writer about China in the west. But his view is all china on the positive side we don’t need. We are not trying to strike a balance but the point of view of the people on the side of protecting HK. This is the voice of the world wants to know.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai directed the English edition of Apple Daily to exclude balanced viewpoints.

Lai confirmed.

The prosecution followed up, asking whether the English edition contained only negative coverage of China and excluded positive stories.

Lai responded that his message specifically referred to Weijian Shan’s articles, which solely portrayed China in a positive light.

The prosecution then asked if the English edition was meant to be unbalanced.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if this meant the reporting was biased.

Lai denied, explaining that the goal was to reflect Hong Kong’s situation, not to publish positive news about China.

Judge Esther Toh challenged this response, pointing out that Lai’s message did not mention presenting “Hong Kong’s viewpoint” but instead referred to focusing on the perspective of the “yellow” side.

Lai clarified, stating that he was not claiming to represent all of Hong Kong’s views, but rather aiming to reflect the city’s reality.

Judge Toh then asked whether a biased perspective is inherently unbalanced.

Lai explained that at the time, China’s policies were negatively affecting Hong Kong, and Apple Daily had to reflect this reality. He further stated that the “yellow” side was resisting Beijing’s encroachment.

The prosecution questioned why the English edition specifically did not require balance.

Lai responded that the goal was to make the world aware of Hong Kong’s suffering.

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked if, in general, newspapers should strive for balanced reporting.

Lai answered that news is conveyed through a series of values, as media exists to communicate news with meaning, allowing readers not only to understand events but also to resonate with them.

The prosecution reiterated that Lai explicitly stated the newspaper should be presented from the “yellow” side’s perspective, making the coverage unbalanced.

Lai attempted to compare it to other media outlets, mentioning Sing Tao Daily, but Judge Remedios interrupted, insisting the question was whether his reporting was unbalanced.

Lai agreed, adding that all newspapers have some degree of bias.

14:56 Lai Admits Wanting Mark Simon to Try Contacting Washington but Knew It Was Unlikely to Succeed

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai about the English edition of Apple Daily, citing an April 2020 email from Christian Whiton, a former senior advisor at the U.S. State Department. In the email, Whiton suggested launching a print edition of Apple Daily in the U.S..

Lai confirmed receiving the email.

The prosecution suggested that the goal was to encourage U.S. politicians to meet with Lai and consider his proposals.

Lai stated he did not recall Whiton saying this but thought the proposal was unrealistic.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai responded to the email by saying “Good idea.”

Lai explained that he thought the idea was good in theory but too costly to implement.

The prosecution then referred to a proposal from Apple Daily columnist Fung Hei-kin, who also suggested launching an English version.

Lai admitted that he eventually accepted Fung’s proposal.

The prosecution quoted Fung’s article:

“If Apple Daily opens an international publicity front and translates all juicy local news into English for release on a separate free website for foreign media…”

The prosecution asked if the goal was to allow English readers to access local news and draw their attention.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether this was a form of international publicity.

Lai stated that the goal was to attract international attention to Hong Kong’s situation.

The prosecution presented messages from May 10, 2020, when Lai created the “English News” WhatsApp group.

In the group, Lai wrote:

“Please push this forward quickly. Many major U.S. media outlets want to interview me because they want to support us. It’s time to reach American readers and make their presence a leverage for us with the U.S. government. This will be a major pillar of support.”

The prosecution asked what “leverage” meant in this context.

Lai responded that he hoped international readers would pay attention to Hong Kong’s situation.

The prosecution then asked whether the goal was to attract international attention to protect Apple Daily politically.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution further asked whether the objective was to rally opposition against Hong Kong officials and the Chinese government.

Lai denied this outright.

The prosecution then referenced a message between Lai and his assistant, Mark Simon, in which Lai wrote:

“Imagine if we get Mike Pence to subscribe to the Apple Daily app! The publicity and respect it commands would arouse much support for us. I know it’s almost impossible to pull it off. But can try? Thanks.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai believed Simon could contact the U.S. government.

Lai responded that he was merely making a suggestion.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai wanted Simon to try reaching out.

Lai agreed but acknowledged that he knew it was unlikely to succeed.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai specifically named Mark Simon because of his connections to the U.S. government.

Lai explained that Simon was his assistant, so it was natural for him to ask Simon to explore the possibility.

14:33 Lai Denies Using Apple Daily to Garner International Opposition Against the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai about his role at Apple Daily, stating that Lai led the newspaper and that its values aligned with his beliefs. Lai agreed that Apple Daily’s values were consistent with his own.

The prosecution further asserted that Apple Daily’s editorial stance matched Lai’s personal views, noting that his trips to the U.S. in July and October 2019 were covered in the newspaper. Lai confirmed this.

Additionally, the prosecution referenced Lai’s previous testimony, in which he stated that despite opposition from senior executives Chan Pui-man and Cheung Kim-hung, the “Letters to Save Hong Kong” campaign proceeded because he was the boss. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then cited Lai’s May 12, 2020, interview on the Taiwanese program Citizen’s Attack, where he stated:

“I think Apple Daily is certainly a thorn in their side. For so many years, we have been anti-communist. We are an opposition newspaper.”

Lai confirmed making this statement.

The prosecution asked whether this stance had always been Apple Daily’s position. Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked if Lai’s leadership and directives created a framework for Apple Daily’s editorial direction. Lai asked for clarification.

The prosecution cited former Apple Daily chief editorial writer and forum editor Yeung Ching-kee, who had testified that Apple Daily’s editorial independence operated within a framework set by Lai.

“Editorial staff had a certain level of freedom within the boundaries set by Lai. They had editorial autonomy but could not step beyond that framework.”

Lai responded that this framework was simply the shared values upheld by Apple Daily.

The prosecution asked:

“But aren’t these your values?”

Lai replied that these values were held by many people, not just himself. He emphasized that he did not impose them and never trained employees to follow them.

The prosecution countered that when there was a disagreement between Lai and his staff, Lai’s decisions prevailed, as seen with the “Letters to Save Hong Kong” campaign.

Lai argued that this was an exception, not the norm.

The prosecution suggested that this example showed Lai was issuing instructions to Apple Daily.

Lai reiterated that the newspaper’s staff shared common values.

The prosecution then brought up Lai’s instructions to ensure comprehensive reporting on anti-extradition protests between March and April 2019.

Lai did not recall giving explicit instructions but agreed this was his intention.

The prosecution further argued that Lai instructed senior executives to use Apple Daily as a platform to encourage the public to take to the streets in protest against the government.

Lai responded:

“Not against the government, but against the extradition bill.”

However, he agreed that Apple Daily encouraged public demonstrations.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai instructed Apple Daily to attract international attention—especially from Western democracies—to pressure Hong Kong and Beijing.

Lai responded that this applied only to the English edition, not the Chinese edition.

Judges Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that in March and April 2019, the English edition had not yet launched.

The prosecution pressed further, arguing that even before the English edition existed, Lai had instructed senior executives to use Apple Daily as a platform to attract international attention and encourage action against Hong Kong and Beijing.

Lai denied this, reiterating that his intention with the English edition was to inform the world about Hong Kong’s situation, not to rally opposition against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.

The prosecution referenced the “Lunchbox Meetings” at Apple Daily, where Lai allegedly instructed employees to encourage protests through the newspaper.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked if Lai also instructed employees to use Apple Daily to draw international attention and encourage action against Hong Kong and Beijing.

Lai said he could not recall but did not believe he had given such an instruction.

The prosecution asserted that Lai had specifically instructed then-CEO Cheung Kim-hung to do so during these meetings.

Lai disagreed, stating that Cheung already knew what needed to be done.

12:52 Lunch

12:38 Prosecution Questions Whether Lai Was the ‘Helmsman’ of Apple Daily; Lai Says He Was the Group’s Chairman

Regarding Jimmy Lai’s role, the prosecution stated that Lai was the major shareholder of Next Digital, owning 71% of the company’s shares from 2019 to 2021. He also controlled three subsidiaries:

• Apple Daily Limited
• Apple Daily Printing Limited
• Apple Daily Internet Limited

Additionally, Lai was Next Digital’s chairman from 2018 to 2020. Lai confirmed these details.

The prosecution asserted that Lai was the “controlling mind” and “directing mind” of Next Digital.

Lai responded:

“I cannot control or dictate other people’s mindset.”

The prosecution asked if Lai was primarily responsible for leading the company, including the board, and providing strategic direction.

Lai agreed but emphasized that he was responsible for the “big picture.”

When asked whether he was the one giving instructions, Lai clarified:

“I set the company’s broad direction, but I do not dictate people’s thinking.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai led Apple Daily.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then presented Apple Daily’s annual report, which stated:

“Mr. Lai is mainly responsible for leading the board and providing strategic direction to the group.”

Lai confirmed this description.

However, he further explained:

“The board was led by me, but the strategy had to be agreed upon by the board.”

The prosecution then asked:

“Did the group’s mission align with your beliefs?”

Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked whether Lai considered himself the “helmsman” of Apple Daily.

Lai responded:

“I was the chairman of Apple Daily, but I would not describe myself as a ‘helmsman.’”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai knew the meaning of “helmsman.”

Lai said he did not understand the term and found it irrelevant.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping explained that “helmsman” refers to a leader.

Lai maintained that he preferred to use the terminology from the company’s annual report.

The prosecution then asked:

“Do you agree that you were the leader of the board?”

Lai replied:

“I was one of the board members, but I was the chairman.”

The prosecution pressed further:

“Did you steer the company?”

Judge Remedios explained that “steer” refers to providing direction.

Lai agreed that he provided “direction.”

The prosecution asked if Apple Daily’s editorial stance was aligned with Lai’s personal beliefs.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked:

“Are you a person who practices what he preaches?”

Lai responded:

“I cannot judge myself.”

Finally, the prosecution asked whether Lai expected his employees to run the company according to his beliefs.

Lai replied:

“I would hope so, but that does not mean they must strictly follow all my beliefs.”

12:04 Prosecution Questions Whether Yuen’s Video Aligned with Lai’s Goals; Lai Says He ‘Didn’t Think About It at the Time’

The prosecution presented a May 31, 2020, conversation between Jimmy Lai and Erica Yuen (Elmer Yuen’s daughter), in which Erica informed Lai:

“Steve Bannon played his letter to President Trump on his live show!”

Lai responded:

“That’s great! Please go on voicing out. Americans are paying attention!”

Erica then mentioned another upcoming video:

“Dad is planning another video to Pompeo, to suggest letting student protesters receive education in the best schools in the U.S. and providing them with financial aid.”

She also sought Lai’s approval before posting the video:

“We would like to seek your consent in uploading my Dad’s video onto YouTube and Twitter before noon U.S. Eastern time. I will do it right now. Hope you are okay with it.”

Lai replied:

“I think your father should do what he thinks is right. He has good judgment.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai remembered when this second video was made. Lai said he couldn’t recall.

The prosecution then showed a June 4, 2020, exchange between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, where the video’s title was already drafted:

“[June 4, 31st Anniversary] Erica Yuen’s Father Calls on U.S. Secretary of State to Punish CCP Criminals and Liberate Hong Kong.”

The prosecution asked whether the video’s content aligned with Lai’s views.

Lai responded that he did not remember watching the video.

The prosecution further pointed out that the video was posted on Apple Daily’s Facebook and Twitter with the following caption:

“[June 4, 31st Anniversary] Erica Yuen’s Father Calls on U.S. Secretary of State to Punish CCP Criminals and Liberate Hong Kong.”

Additionally, the social media post included the message:

“Letter to @SecPompeo. Please free #HongKong from the CCP criminals (by Elmer Yuen).

‘The Chinese Nazi has been eliminating HK’s teenagers for saying NO to tyranny. Once the #NationalSecurityLaw is passed in late June, the Holocaust will begin.’”

The prosecution asked if Lai had seen the video.

Lai stated that he might have noticed the text but did not pay attention to the details.

The prosecution highlighted that the text explicitly called for “liberating Hong Kong”.

Lai said he hadn’t noticed that phrase.

When pressed about what “liberating Hong Kong” meant, Lai responded that he only glanced at the message and hadn’t given it much thought.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked:

“You saw the text but didn’t think about it?”

Lai explained that he wasn’t sensitive to such content and wasn’t focused on it.

The prosecution claimed that Lai was aware of the video’s content and that it aligned with his own campaign’s goals.

Lai denied this, reiterating that he didn’t know what the video contained.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked if Lai knew what the video was about.

Lai admitted he glanced at it briefly but insisted that he was too focused on his daily work to pay attention to other matters.

Judge Toh pointed out that the video’s content was closely related to what Lai was advocating at the time.

Lai repeated that he hadn’t watched it.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked:

“What were you focused on at the time?”

Lai responded that, as a media executive, he had many important matters to handle, including business expansion and financial difficulties.

Judge Remedios then asked:

“Did this video contribute to Apple Daily’s business expansion?”

Lai said it did not concern him.

Judge Toh challenged this response, noting that Lai had previously described himself as a “hands-off” boss.

She asked:

“So what exactly were you focused on?”

Lai replied that he was dealing with various issues, including financial matters.

The prosecution asked if Lai’s launch of Apple Daily’s English edition was meant to garner international support for Hong Kong.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked if Elmer Yuen’s videos, which targeted the U.S. audience, had the same objective.

Lai stated that he was only interested in his own English-language efforts, not Yuen’s videos.

The prosecution pressed further:

“Lai’s goal was to attract international attention to Hong Kong. Wasn’t Yuen’s goal the same?”

Lai admitted:

“If I had paid attention at the time, I might have thought that way. But I didn’t think about it back then.”

11:23 Break

11:15 Prosecution Questions Lai on His Knowledge of Elmer Yuen’s Video Content; Lai Admits Misremembering
The prosecution presented a May 29, 2020, conversation between Jimmy Lai and Erica Yuen (Elmer Yuen’s daughter), where Erica messaged:

“Morning Jimmy, My dad is heading to your headquarters now. His letter to Trump is exceptional and emotional.”

She then sent him a speech excerpt:

“President Trump, I want to thank my friend Jimmy Lai for producing and delivering this YouTube letter to you on behalf of the FREE citizens of HK…You should sanction these Communist entities…”

Lai responded:

“Erica, Thanks. This is a very good letter. Hope President Trump will see it and react. Cheers, Jimmy.”

The prosecution challenged Lai’s earlier claim that he did not know the content of Elmer Yuen’s video, pointing to his WhatsApp conversation with Erica Yuen.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked, “Did you misremember?”

Lai agreed, saying, “I repeatedly misremembered.”

The prosecution then asked if Lai agreed with the phrase:

“You should sanction these Communist entities.”

Lai stated that his response did not indicate agreement or disagreement with that specific sentence.

The prosecution pressed further, pointing out that Lai explicitly called it “a very good letter.”

Lai explained that he was referring to the letter as a whole, not necessarily agreeing with the specific sanction-related statement.

The prosecution countered, asking how Elmer Yuen and Erica Yuen could know which parts Lai agreed with if he did not clarify.

Lai reiterated that he considered it a good letter overall.

The prosecution then highlighted Lai’s statement:

“Hope President Trump will see it and react.”

They questioned whether Lai wanted Trump to respond to Elmer Yuen and Erica Yuen’s suggestions.

Lai confirmed this.

Judge Alex Lee pointed out that Lai had previously testified that he disagreed with two points in Elmer Yuen’s video:

1. Calling for U.S. companies to withdraw from Hong Kong
2. Allegations that young people had been raped and murdered

Judge Lee then challenged Lai, asking why he described it as “a very good letter” if he disagreed with these aspects.

Lai responded that he had only skimmed the letter at the time and had not noticed those two points.

He added that he later became uneasy about Elmer Yuen.

Judge Lee questioned why Lai continued to let Elmer Yuen film videos for Apple Daily if he felt uneasy about him.

Lai explained that his unease developed after Yuen’s videos were produced, as he interacted with Yuen more and became uncomfortable.

The prosecution pressed for specifics, asking:

“What exactly did Yuen say or do that made you uneasy?”

Lai responded:

“I didn’t want to associate with him.”

He described it as a gradual feeling but could not recall specific incidents.

11:10 Lai Says He Only Knew Yuen Wanted to Send an Open Letter to Trump, Not Its Contents

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping referred to Lai’s messages with Cheung Chi-wai, in which Cheung stated that he had scheduled a filming session with Elmer and Erica Yuen.

Lai had replied:

“Very good, thanks.”

Judge Toh asked:

“So you not only provided the platform but also encouraged them?”

Lai responded that he simply allowed them to use the platform to communicate their message.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had allowed Yuen to use Apple Daily to send a letter to Trump.

Lai replied that he did not know what Yuen planned to say to Trump, only that he was using the platform.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai ever inquired about Yuen’s message before filming.

Lai admitted he did not.

The prosecution pointed out that after Lai launched the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, Yuen also used Apple Daily as a platform.

They asked:

“Did you worry Yuen might say something that conflicted with your campaign?”

Lai said he was not concerned, stating that he did not censor others’ statements and was not present when Yuen filmed the video.

Judge Toh then posed a hypothetical question:

“What if Yuen had called on Trump to stay out of Hong Kong affairs?”

Lai replied that he knew Yuen would not say that.

Judge Toh followed up:

“Did Yuen support the movement?”

Lai confirmed that Yuen supported the movement but emphasized that this did not necessarily mean Yuen supported the “One Hongkonger, One Letter” campaign.

The prosecution argued that this meant Lai had knowledge of Yuen’s video content before its release.

Lai denied this, maintaining that he only knew Yuen supported the movement, not the specific content of his statements.

The prosecution further asserted that Lai must have known what Yuen was going to say before the video was published.

Lai denied this and said he could not recall if he watched the video afterward.

Judge Alex Lee then raised concerns about Cheung Chi-wai’s messages, which indicated that appointments were scheduled with both Elmer and Erica Yuen.

He asked whether this meant Yuen had recorded more than one video.

Lai responded that he had no knowledge of another video.

10:43 Lai Confirms Providing Apple Daily as a Platform for Elmer Yuen’s Open Letter to Trump

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai about the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign. Lai confirmed that this was an editorial directive.

The prosecution then inquired about a video featuring Elmer Yuen, the wanted founder of the Hong Kong Parliament, which was published by Apple Daily. Lai confirmed that the video was arranged by Apple Daily executives and that he was not involved in organizing it.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had communicated with Yuen before the video’s release. Lai stated that he did not remember.

The court was shown a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Yuen on May 28, 2020:

Yuen: “I want to make a public video letter to Trump & Pompeo, urging them to station a UN humanitarian force in HK to protect our youth. I can make the video in your studio on Friday. We will challenge PRC in the UN with evidence of their illegal suppression and police brutality. It’s war. HK economy will collapse when the market opens in the morning.”

Lai: “OK, I can arrange our colleagues to do that for you. I’ll have our chief, Nick, contact you to arrange. Thanks, Jimmy.”

On June 3, 2020, Yuen messaged Lai again:

“Jimmy, thank you for providing me the platform to start my mission to destroy CCP. I will go to Washington Sunday to plead for help for Hong Kong from the White House. Any suggestions or anything you want me to do, let me know. Can we meet before my departure, Sunday night?”

The prosecution pointed out that Yuen communicated with Lai before the video was filmed and later thanked him for his assistance.

Lai acknowledged that he provided a platform for Yuen but denied helping him contact Trump.

The court then played Yuen’s video on Apple Daily, in which he spoke in Chinese:

“To all Hongkongers who believe in freedom… I am willing to write an open letter… Let’s win this battle together.”

In English, Yuen said:

“Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, Jimmy Lai, for producing and delivering this YouTube letter to you on behalf of all citizens of Hong Kong. The video you are watching now is showing the little-known leaders of Hong Kong’s heroic freedom movement over the last 12 months. These teenagers are mainly high school and college students. They are fighting to make Hong Kong a home of freedom, democracy, and rule of law… Mr. President, the United States is suffering from the pandemic caused by the Chinese Communists… Hong Kong has become the largest money laundering center… Sanction all these communist entities… We all know the end of Hong Kong is near.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had instructed Cheung Chi-wai to assist with the video production. Lai stated that he had simply agreed to let Cheung assist Yuen.

The prosecution further asked if Lai agreed with Yuen’s statements in the video. Lai responded that he only agreed to let Yuen use Apple Daily as a platform but did not know the content of the video.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai had watched the video. Lai stated that he could not recall if he had seen it at the time.

The court was then shown a May 31, 2020, message from Lai:

“Just got it from Erica, and it’s great! Steve Bannon has Trump’s eyes. Please go on voicing out. Cheers, Jimmy.”

Lai reiterated that he did not remember whether he had watched the video.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned whether Lai had seen the video, pointing out that his message explicitly stated “Just got it from Erica, and it’s great!”

Lai stated that he could not remember.

The prosecution also presented a May 31 conversation between Lai and Cheung Chi-wai, in which Cheung noted that the video had received 27,000 likes.

Lai replied:

“We can do more. Thanks, Lai.”

The prosecution argued that Lai helped Yuen produce the open letter video.

Lai denied this, stating that he only provided a platform.

Judge Toh then asked whether Lai also provided the studio.

Lai confirmed this but stressed that the production itself only involved Yuen reading his letter on camera.

The prosecution argued that this was another example—aside from the “One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign—of Apple Daily seeking international attention, particularly from the United States.

Lai responded that he merely provided the platform and was not involved in the content.

10:30 Lai Confirms Using Apple Daily as a Platform to Call for Protests

The prosecution continued presenting evidence regarding the June 9 protest (6.9 march), showing a conversation between Jimmy Lai and then-Apple Daily Digital News Director Cheung Chi-wai. Lai had forwarded a message he had sent to then-Editor-in-Chief Ryan Law Wai-kwong to Cheung, stating:

“Wai-kwong, the bicycle parade promotion is useless! Use push notifications today to promote it, and call on all cycling enthusiasts to participate tomorrow! Thanks. Lai.”

Cheung replied:

“Got it, received.”

The prosecution stated that Lai was using Apple Daily as a platform to encourage more people to take to the streets on June 9.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then presented a June 15, 2019 conversation between Lai and Deputy Chief Editor Chan Pui-man, ahead of the June 16 protest (6.16 march).

Lai messaged:

“No withdrawal, no dispersal!”

He suggested this as a possible headline.

Chan later replied:

“Taking to the streets today – No withdrawal, no dispersal.”

Lai then added:

“Keep marching until Carrie Lam falls! That’s my personal headline.”

The prosecution argued that Lai was actively suggesting headlines for coverage.

Lai insisted that it was his personal headline.

The prosecution pressed, questioning whether Lai had suggested it as a potential headline.

Lai denied directly proposing a headline to Chan Pui-man.

The court was then shown a front-page template featuring “No withdrawal, no dispersal”.

Lai stated that staff had already completed the headline before he mentioned it, claiming he was merely repeating what had already been decided, not providing the headline himself.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned:

“Then what exactly were you asking Chan to consider in his message?”

Lai suggested it may have been about a protest poster rather than a newspaper headline.

Judge Toh then asked:

“Did you give instructions on the headline?”

Lai responded that he had asked Chan to consider it but did not issue a directive.

The prosecution reiterated that Lai’s messages with top executives demonstrated that he used Apple Daily to mobilize people for protests.

Lai confirmed this.

10:10 Lai Confirms Messaging Staff to Consider Ways to Encourage More People to Protest

The prosecution continued questioning Apple Daily’s reporting, stating that many 2019 headlines called on people to take to the streets in protest, aligning with Lai’s advocacy. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked if Lai called on people to protest as part of an anti-government movement.

Lai responded that his focus was on opposing the Extradition Bill.

The prosecution presented a message exchange between Lai and Apple Daily executives as an example. On April 27, 2019, Lai messaged then-chief executive Cheung Kim-hung, stating:

“The news about Lam Wing-kee will somewhat help bring people out tomorrow, but the situation is still too quiet. Please think about what we can do to call on citizens to take to the streets tomorrow. Thanks, Lai.”

Cheung replied:

“Boss, got it.”

In court, Lai proactively stated that he was not giving an instruction but merely asking Cheung to think about it.

The prosecution then presented a same-day message from Lai to Deputy Chief Editor Chan Pui-man, in which Lai said:

“Pui-man, please think about what we can do to maximize turnout tomorrow. The situation is too quiet—it’s worrying. Thanks, Lai.”

Chan responded:

“Got it.”

The prosecution asked if Lai’s messages to top executives aimed to encourage Apple Daily to find ways to get more people to protest.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then presented a June 3, 2019 conversation between Lai and Chan Pui-man regarding the June 9 mass protest (6.9 march):

Lai: “We should find some petitioning students to interview to inspire other students to come out on June 9.”
Chan: “Got it. Will look for more. Thanks.”
Lai: “The main goal is to interview them—not to focus on ‘senior’ students but to inspire other students to come out. Thanks, Lai.”
Chan: “Understood.”

The prosecution asked if Lai instructed subordinates to encourage more students to protest.

Lai agreed but said he could not recall the details of the petition.

When asked what he meant by:

“The main goal is to interview them—not to focus on ‘senior’ students but to inspire other students to come out,”

Lai reaffirmed that he wanted more students to participate in the protest.

The prosecution then asked why Lai wanted more students to protest.

Lai stated that the larger the protest, the stronger the movement.

The prosecution pressed further, asking why he specifically targeted students rather than adults.

Lai responded that students were part of the movement and could inspire broader participation.

The prosecution then questioned if Lai sought public sympathy through student involvement.

Lai denied this and clarified that the petitioning students he referred to were likely university students.

When asked if he also wanted secondary school students to join protests, Lai denied this.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked about Lai’s statement:

“The main goal is to interview them—not to focus on ‘senior’ students but to inspire other students to come out.”

She asked if the “other students” referred to secondary school students.

Lai denied this, stating that he meant students who had not signed the petition—mainly university students.

10:09 Court in Session

The Witness