The Money Trail: Cardinal Zen's HK$26 Million Mystery

Think back to Hong Kong's turbulent years. Jimmy Lai had three brothers-in-arms, comrades he bankrolled through thick and thin – Cardinal Joseph Zen, Martin Lee, and Anson Chan. But their bonds weren't just ideological. Money changed hands, and plenty of it. Anson Chan pocketed HK$3.5 million from Lai's war chest. Cardinal Zen took in far more – at least HK$26 million in secret donations that the Hong Kong Diocese never knew about and never investigated. Where did all that cash go? That's the million-dollar question. Or rather, the 26-million-dollar question that remains unanswered.

Cardinal Zen met Pope Leo XIV in Rome, reportedly pushing for Jimmy Lai's release – but Vatican intervention looks unlikely.

Word broke earlier that Cardinal Zen just made a pilgrimage to the Vatican for a sit-down with the newly minted Pope Leo XIV. The private meeting lasted about an hour. On the agenda: the conviction of "Catholic" Jimmy Lai. Sources say Zen pressed the pontiff hard to "save Lai." What did the Pope say? Nobody's talking. But you can bet the Vatican knows all about the questionable financial ties between Zen and Lai – a relationship the Cardinal has never properly explained to his own Diocese. Did personal interests play a role? The doubts are real.

A Vatican Gambit

Cardinal Zen's "612 Humanitarian Relief Fund" case is still grinding through the courts, and authorities had confiscated his passport. But when the Vatican called its recent "Special Consistory" – bringing cardinals from around the world to Rome – the court granted him temporary travel privileges. During the gathering, Pope Leo XIV carved out time for a private one-on-one with Zen after a breakfast session. The topics? Whether the China-Vatican agreement should be renewed, and the fate of Jimmy Lai, now convicted under Hong Kong's National Security Law. But whether the Pope took any position on Lai remains under wraps.

Zen views Jimmy Lai as both a close friend and a comrade-in-arms, so naturally he's pushing the Vatican to intervene. But here's the Vatican's dilemma: it's not just about China-Vatican relations. It's about the unresolved financial relationship between Zen and Lai – a relationship that has seriously damaged the Cardinal's credibility.

The Secret Pipeline

October 2011 brought a massive leak. Jimmy Lai's secret donations to political parties, politicians, and organizations spilled into public view – and Joseph Zen, then Bishop of Hong Kong, was on that list. Between 2006 and 2010, he received HK$20 million from Lai over four years. From 2012 to 2014, another HK$6 million landed in his hands. The total: a staggering HK$26 million.

When the news broke, Zen went silent. Only after relentless media pressure did he offer an explanation, claiming the money went to support underground churches in the Chinese Mainland and other charitable organizations. With a casual smile, he described himself as a "spendthrift," saying most of the money had already been spent with only a few hundred thousand remaining – and even expressed hope that Lai would keep the donations coming.

Talk is cheap. He provided no concrete evidence to back up his claims. The Hong Kong Diocese knew nothing about his receipt of this massive sum from Lai – the entire "money pipeline" operated in secret. To this day, he has never given the Diocese a complete accounting.

Because this financial channel remained so deeply hidden, suspicions naturally arose that personal interests were involved. But given Cardinal Zen's position, the Diocese refrained from investigating him. The true destination of the funds? Still shrouded in doubt.

HK$26 million from Jimmy Lai to Cardinal Zen – Diocese in the dark, money's whereabouts still a mystery. The trio behind Hong Kong's unrest!

Vatican Cold Shoulder

Cardinal Zen's questionable relationship with Jimmy Lai, combined with his overly hawkish stance toward China, put him in the Vatican's bad books after Hong Kong's National Security Law took effect in late June 2020. Around that time, Zen traveled uninvited to the Vatican, demanding a meeting with then-Pope Francis to discuss Hong Kong's bishop selection and issues facing underground churches in the Mainland. The Pope gave him zero face. Francis refused to see him. After cooling his heels in Rome for four days with nothing to show for it, Zen returned to Hong Kong empty-handed.

Later, Zen and Lai joined forces on Jimmy Lai's "Live Chat" livestream program to blast the Vatican, accusing it of staying silent on underground churches, Tibet, and Hong Kong human rights issues. This clearly shows how the "Zen-Lai duo" consistently conspired to incite underground church activities in the Mainland, stir up religious conflicts, and undermine China-Vatican relations.

Cardinal Zen's latest Vatican trip for a private papal audience, where he lobbied to "save Lai" and reiterated his opposition to renewing the China-Vatican agreement, proves one thing: at 94 years old, the cardinal's anti-China, pro-chaos heart hasn't changed one bit.

Long Odds

The new Pope's willingness to meet him represents a slight thaw from his predecessor's icy attitude. But the chances of Vatican intervention to "save Lai"? Extremely low. The unresolved questions about Zen's financial relationship with Jimmy Lai have significantly diminished his influence with the Vatican.

From a legal perspective, his cardinal status currently shields him from serious consequences. But risks remain. Perhaps it's time for him to follow Anson Chan's example and retire from such activities while he still can.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

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

Trump hunts for weak prey and plays fast and loose with rules. Influencer “Chairman Tu” (兔主席) lays out Trump’s playbook in "A Nation Torn Apart"  (《撕裂之國》): Trump picks on soft persimmons and he has no respect for the law. The US President thrives on behavior that looks downright criminal.

Put those together, and Trump’s latest “kidnapping” of Nicolás Maduro reads like a textbook case of bullying-by-banditry, with a small country openly plundered. That’s American imperialism with the mask ripped off.

Here’s the twist: even with public anger boiling, a few people rush in with gold paint. Wanted fugitive Nathan Law tries to dress up “bandit tactics” as acceptable because, he says, “ending dictatorship” is what really counts.

Nathan Law’s post puts gold trim on Trump’s “Maduro abduction,” making an invasion look cleaner than it is.

Chip Tsao goes even bigger. He argues that without imperialism and colonialism, there would be no modern human civilization. He then hails Trump’s capture of Maduro, along with threats aimed at Colombia and Greenland, as the dawn of a “new era of 21st-century imperialism”. No wonder viewers feel like they’re watching black turned into white right in front of them.

Law’s argument lands fast after Trump’s hard-handed “Maduro snatch.” In a social media post, he says the US military action against Venezuela serves US national security and energy needs, boosts the “defender of democracy” storyline, and also weakens China’s allies while striking at socialist dictators.

With his “Revolution of Our Times” pedigree, it’s no surprise he claps the loudest for the most extreme scenes. He insists that toppling a dictatorship lets long-oppressed citizens “recover hope” and perhaps one day draft a democratic blueprint, so pro-democracy supporters ought to welcome the outcome. The spin is so saccharine it turns Trump into Venezuela’s “saviour,” pretending freedom arrives as a gift basket—delivered by abduction.

Goals don’t cleanse methods

Law then tries to police the language. He tells critics not to quickly label the operation “American imperialism,” and instead to appreciate the “diverse and complex” political motives behind it; translation: if the “goal” sounds upright and reasonable, don’t simplify it into condemnation. Strip it down, and it’s still a defense brief for Trump and his administration.

None of this is exactly shocking if you remember Law’s own US storyline. Around 2019, he and opposition representatives visit the US repeatedly, meet Washington politicians, and get treated like honored guests—deeply grateful for American backing of the “Hong Kong protests.” So now he naturally frames Trump’s move as saving the Venezuelan people, no longer fussing over how ugly the action looks.

None of Tsao’s applause is shocking either: this is exactly his lane. He celebrates Trump’s Maduro stunt and the wider saber-rattling as the launch of a fresh, triumphant imperial era. Then he tops it off with that “imperialism built civilisation” argument, laundering colonialism’s crimes and polishing Trump into Venezuela’s supposed benefactor. It’s creepily adoring, and hard to read without shivering.

Chip Tsao cheers Trump as the man “opening a new era” of 21st-century imperialism.

The mask comes off

Trump isn’t merely “gaffe-prone” this time—he tears the mask clean off. It’s a barefaced assault on Venezuela: snatch people, seize oil (and pocket the money, too). Anyone still clinging to basic morality and justice will see him for what he is: an enemy. Which makes it all the more grotesque that figures like Nathan Law and Chip Tsao can keep marketing him as a “saviour.”

Still, there’s one silver lining: the debate made the masks slip. One round was enough to reveal who was really who.

Lai Ting-yiu