Court Ruling Reveals Irrefutable Evidence: Jimmy Lai Is a Liar

Leung Ngar-ki, a member of Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies

On 15 December 2025, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its final verdict: Jimmy Lai was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security, and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The 855-page judgment explicitly stated his testimony was "inconsistent, evasive and not credible". Confronted with the prosecution's comprehensive chain of evidence presented in an 860-page written closing argument, comprising 2,222 items of evidence and over 80,000 pages of trial records, alongside irrefutable testimony from six former Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty in the same case, the lies of this anti-China, pro-Hong Kong chaos instigator were exposed one by one. He has become an "absurd and despicable liar" despised by all Hong Kong citizens.

"Analysing the situation" became "stating facts", with contradictory statements on sanctions backfiring. In earlier live broadcasts, Jimmy Lai brazenly called on Germany, Australia, Canada and others to ally with the US in sanctioning China. He even boasted that "war threats" would cause "businessmen to suspend investment in China, putting its economy at risk of collapse", describing Hong Kong as a pawn for the West to counterbalance China. Yet when questioned about this in court, he immediately backtracked, claiming he was merely "analysing the global situation" and certainly not advocating sanctions. More outrageously, during a dialogue with the former chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, he extensively discussed "Taiwan's security dependence on the US" and "Taiwan being an excellent lever... the US and all free world nations must jointly support preserving Taiwan's status." Yet in court, he defended this as merely "stating facts that have already occurred," denying any advocacy for a "US-Taiwan alliance." His legal assistant, Wayland Chan Tsz-wah, directly testified that "without Jimmy Lai, there would be no political connections in the US and elsewhere to unify international efforts towards sanctions," accusing Lai of seeking foreign sanctions to precipitate China's political and economic collapse. Lai had allegedly boasted that "China's GDP would plummet by 40%, presenting the perfect opportunity to introduce American-style democracy." While actively stoking the flames by calling for foreign intervention, he vehemently denied soliciting hostile actions. This self-contradictory sophistry crumbled before audio-visual evidence and witness testimony.

"Forgotten" became his catchphrase, while the mastermind turned into a hands-off manager – utterly preposterous. During his court defence, Jimmy Lai frequently suffered "memory lapses," responding to multiple critical questions with "I don't know," "I don't recall," or "I'm not familiar with." Even when the prosecution presented meticulously organised evidence tables following a timeline, he claimed amnesia about his communications with former senior staff of Apple Daily. The testimony of Next Media's former Chief Executive, Cheung Kim-hung, directly exposed these falsehoods. Jimmy Lai was the founder and "helmsman" of Apple Daily, as well as the supreme leader and ultimate decision-maker of the Next Media Group. He dictated editorial and publishing policies, directing editorial direction through "lunchbox meetings". Following the 2014 illegal Occupy Central movement, he transformed the newspaper into a bastion of "anti-government and anti-central authority" sentiment. Former Apple Daily Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man further testified that his management style was "so overbearing that no one dared refuse", and after the 2019 Legislative Council riots, he explicitly ordered "the public must be persuaded to support the protest movement". Yet in court, Jimmy Lai feigned ignorance, claiming his directives were "merely suggestions, not coercion," attempting to downplay his editorial responsibility. This charade of "masterminding while feigning amnesia" treats the courtroom as a stage, constituting a blatant disregard for the dignity of the law.

"Opposing violence" while condoning it: editorial directives expose true intentions. Jimmy Lai repeatedly professes his stance against violence, claiming articles were "heartfelt" reflections of reality. Yet trial evidence reveals that during the 2019 extradition bill protests, he issued editorial directives instructing staff to report with "sympathy" on young people storming the Legislative Council. He even messaged pan-democrats inquiring about "follow-up actions to sustain the protests." More ironically, while urging Hong Kongers to "lobby for international support," he denied inciting hatred against the government. He admitted hoping to force the SAR government to compromise through "numbers and momentum," yet claimed no incitement intent. This double standard of "saying one thing and doing another" exposed his true role in using the media to fan the flames and condone violence.

His "unaware" stance swiftly transformed into "strong support," yet colluding with external falsehoods proved untenable. Confronted with evidence of his ties to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the Stand with Hong Kong Team (SWHK), Jimmy Lai initially falsely claimed "no knowledge of these organisations," only for social media posts to directly contradict him. Posts on Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's personal social media accounts reveal his repeated public endorsement of IPAC, expressing strong support for its advocated "sanctions". Not only did Jimmy Lai establish an overseas network through his personal assistant, former CIA agent Mark Simon, frequently travelling to the US to meet politicians including then-Vice President Mike Pence and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to plead for "sanctions" against the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR government, he also instructed Apple Daily executives to compile a "sanctions list", and even after the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect, he continued to declare he would "go all the way, no turning back." Yet in court, he argued he "was not requesting sanctions." Such contradictory justifications, exposed by cross-border lobbying communications and witness testimony, have become utterly laughable.

The rule of law has ultimately exposed these falsehoods, and those who oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong cannot escape justice. Jimmy Lai's conduct during the trial could be described as a veritable "record of lies." From his inconsistent statements on sanctions, to the tired ploy of feigning amnesia, to his outright denial of colluding with external forces, each contradiction was exposed by irrefutable evidence. The rule of law is Hong Kong's core value and a vital cornerstone for the steady and enduring implementation of "one country, two systems". The 855-page judgment and overwhelming evidence not only substantiated Jimmy Lai's multiple offences but also exposed the deceitful nature concealed beneath his masks as a "democratic fighter" and "guardian of journalism". The dignity of Hong Kong's rule of law shall not be transgressed. National security and Hong Kong's fundamental interests shall be robustly safeguarded under the steadfast protection of the law.

InsightSpeak

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Grace Zhou, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies

The dust has settled on Hong Kong’s 8th Legislative Council election, with voter turnout rising from 30.2% in 2021 to 31.9% this time. Hong Kong society and the new electoral system are gradually working out a new way of relating to each other. Rather than fixating on the numbers, a more meaningful question now is not whether people voted, but who did, on what basis they made their decisions, and how those evolving criteria might shape executive‑legislative relations over the next term.

The most notable part this time is how voters made their judgments. An increasing number of voters are no longer voting solely on the basis of party affiliation or political camp, but first examining a candidate’s résumé, professional competence and their actual performance in local districts or sectors before casting their vote—in other words, marking a “report card” with their ballots.

The 2021 poll was the first LegCo election after the reforms, and the public were unfamiliar with the new system. Four years on, the basic framework has stabilised, and voters have understood how the new system operates. As that sense of unfamiliarity recedes, attention naturally has shifted back to the candidates themselves.

If the previous era of high-intensity politics was driven by emotion and identity‑based voting, this election looks more like a cool-headed calculation. Voters care about who, within the existing system, can actually address concrete problems such as building safety, public housing maintenance, and medical and elderly care. Instead of being satisfied simply with a few slogans, they look for those who have put forward workable proposals and followed through over time. Many candidates who are not members of the main political parties emerged by specialised expertise and community service. Clearly, within the current political structure, voters are still using their ballots to reshape the internal balance of power. Emotions have cooled, but the bar has been raised – voters will remember who asks serious questions in the chamber and who merely shows up for the photo op.

Under the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” , executive leadership is the prerequisite, and the executive and legislature moving “in the same direction” is seen as a guarantee of stability. Lawmakers can and should, at the strategic level, support the move from governance to greater prosperity, economic development and safeguarding national security. But voters also want to see specific policies subjected to open debate and amendment, major incidents and governance failures be reasonably examined and institutionally reviewed; and budgets and bills be judiciously examined instead of a quick pass.

If the new LegCo is to respond to this pragmatic and rational public sentiment, it needs to position itself as a cooperative overseer.

Cooperation here means upholding executive primacy while leveraging the legislature’s professional expertise and public mandate to help refine and improve government policy. In practice, this could involve task forces, district networks and industry consultations to collate public input in the policy design phase and feed it into official deliberations at an early stage. When crises emerge, lawmakers and the executive should move in tandem — supporting speedy appropriations and measures while communicating feedback to policymakers in time. On long‑term issues such as the Northern Metropolis, transport infrastructure and elderly care, there should be sustained follow‑up through cross‑sector mechanisms — rather than disbanding committees upon the completion of a project and leaving it unattended.

Oversight is not about reflexive opposition at the eleventh hour but about targeted, constructive scrutiny throughout questioning and debate. Lawmakers should press for data and impact assessments, making full use of oral and written questions, and insist on disclosure of key figures and risk evaluations. They should also put forward alternative proposals, offering clear adjustments to procedures, supporting measures and timetables, so that debate becomes an instrument of refinement rather than mere rhetoric. Previous years of stagnation on the regulation of ride-hailing in Hong Kong was largely the result of simple opposition without substantive proposals. In terms of implementation and outcomes, follow-up committees, site visits and engagement with frontline stakeholders should be adopted to examine whether policies are being distorted in practice or resources misallocated. They should also help prompt timely adjustments where needed, rather than waiting until problems erupt and then vetoing everything in one go.

Overall, if the new LegCo is to respond to this rational, pragmatic public mandate, it must be a rigorous questioner on public safety and livelihood issues, a meticulous guardian over legislation and budgets, and an honest collaborator in executive interactions.

This election shows that there is still a group of voters willing to spend time finding out who the candidates are and what they have done before making up their minds. That conscientiousness is perhaps the most valuable seed of a new electoral culture. It is now up to the new LegCo and the HKSAR Government to answer that: they must demonstrate with visible reform outcomes that the system can not only maintain stability and properly manage elections, but also solve problems and improve people’s lives; and they must convince citizens that political confrontation has cooled and the system is more trustworthy. If they can respond to these expectations, there is a genuine opportunity for the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” to be gradually translated into good governance that people can benefit from in their daily lives.