Who's Really Bankrolling “Stand with Hong Kong”?

The Jimmy Lai trial ripped the mask off "Stand with Hong Kong." Courts heard how Lai and his operatives weaponized this so-called advocacy group to pursue their "international line"—code for colluding with foreign forces to destabilize national security. But even after ringleaders Andy Li Yu-hin and Chan Tsz-wah got arrested and locked up, Stand with Hong Kong keeps on running. Someone's still pulling the strings.

Born in the chaos of the anti-extradition bill period, "Stand with Hong Kong"—also known as the "lam chau team" (SWHK)—adopted the scorched-earth slogan "If we burn, you burn with us". They've always claimed to be independent, grassroots, funded by crowdsourcing. That story fell apart in court. Evidence showed Lai bankrolled their global ad campaigns and international lobbying—specifically their push to get foreign countries to sanction China.

After the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, Stand with Hong Kong still did not restrain itself. It keeps churning out anti-China content online, publishing report after report. Just last month, they handed the European Union a hit list—14 Hong Kong SAR government officials and police officers they want sanctioned for alleged "human rights violations" and "abuse of force" during 2019.

A Web of Anti-China Allies

Stand with Hong Kong doesn't work alone. They team up constantly with other anti-China outfits, issuing joint statements, lobbying Washington, London, and Brussels to slap sanctions on Hong Kong SAR officials. They've publicly demanded the British government intervene to free Jimmy Lai. They've organized multiple protests in London opposing construction of the Chinese embassy in the UK.

The operation is aggressive, the activities extensive. Yet the key players hide in shadows. Where's the money coming from?

In recent years, the team's gone underground. They operate mainly through online publications and mobilization, coordinating with overseas individuals and organizations. Their website and social media? No contact persons listed. No one claiming responsibility.

The Crowdfunding Fairy Tale

They claim they "rely on crowdfunding to maintain operations". But since their last crowdfunding drive in May 2020, Stand with Hong Kong hasn't published a single shred of public information showing any subsequent fundraising activity.

So where does the cash come from? Informed sources suggest looking at Stand with Hong Kong's overseas network for answers.

Organizations working hand-in-glove with Stand with Hong Kong include the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation—run by Mark Clifford, former Next Digital Group director. There's Hong Kong Watch, funded by Mark Simon and operated primarily by Benedict Rogers. There's the Hong Kong Democracy Council, fronted by fugitive national security suspect Anna Kwok. And since 2023, Stand with Hong Kong has served as secretariat for the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.

These "friendly organizations" form a network with crystal-clear political objectives. Through overseas advocacy and coordinated actions, their primary target is attacking the Central Government and the SAR government.

In other words: Jimmy Lai may be behind bars facing trial, but the organizations and individuals Stand with Hong Kong maintains close contact with all have direct or indirect ties to Lai. Whether this team—which brands itself a "grassroots organization"—receives operational funding and other support within this anti-China network remains the billion-dollar question.

Ariel

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

For months, overseas supporters painted Jimmy Lai as frail and fading fast behind bars. His daughter even claimed his fingernails had turned green and fallen off.

But the man who walked into court today presented a different picture. Lai stepped into the dock on his own, steady and alert. He looked composed — none of the weakness or fatigue described by his family and foreign backers.

No Case for Sympathy

The court’s written judgment made its stance clear: age, health, and solitary confinement were no excuse for leniency. After reviewing detailed medical reports from the Correctional Services Department, the judge ruled that Lai has received proper, continuous medical care — and that no sentence reduction is warranted.

The report dated January 9, 2026, offered a medical snapshot: Lai takes prescribed medication for hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes, all under control. Tests on his heart and hearing showed no abnormalities.

He had dental issues in 2021 and received specialist treatment, with no follow-up complaints since 2022. His eyesight shows early cataracts but remains stable under observation.

Minor Ailments, Maximum Care

In mid-2024, doctors spotted fungal nail infections on his right thumb and left big toe. Lai declined topical treatment and preferred a conservative approach, which doctors continued to monitor. By late 2025, the condition remained stable, with no signs of worsening.

The report even tracked his weight: 80 kilograms in December 2020, down slightly to 79.2 in January 2026 — both figures putting him in the overweight range for Asian adults.

The defence argued the weight loss showed a health decline, but the court brushed that aside. The key question, the judge said, was not whether Lai had lost weight — but whether it mattered medically. The records said no.

Judge Draws the Line

Medical issues won’t win Lai any leniency, the judge ruled. His crimes were serious, and his own lawyers admitted his ailments weren’t life-threatening. Compassion, the court made plain, has limits when weighed against the severity of the offence.

The court added that speculation about future health decline held no weight. The Correctional Services Department has a duty to ensure proper care, and so far, has fulfilled it.

Isolation by Choice

On Lai’s solitary confinement: that was his own call. Relying on CSD testimony, the judge said Lai repeatedly requested separation from other inmates, citing fears of harassment because of his notoriety. Each time, he confirmed he did so voluntarily.

The CSD made clear that Lai continues to enjoy every right guaranteed to inmates — from family visits and letter correspondence to religious services, outdoor exercise, and full access to medical and psychological care. Every safeguard remains intact. Notably, Lai has never once complained about his medical treatment, and the court pointed out that neither he nor his lawyers disputed any of these facts.