The Jimmy Lai Chronicle – What the Court was told (1) The Middleman's Playbook: How a Foreign Influence Machine is Built

The 855-page court judgment is out. It exposes the mechanics of Jimmy Lai's overseas network—and the role his “assistant” Mark Simon played as fixer-in-chief. In December 2025, Lai was convicted on three counts, including two charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.

The documentary evidence is damning. WhatsApp logs. Payment records. A web of connections spanning Westminster to Washington to Taipei. The American line is most elaborate, from the US President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

When defense lawyers asked Lai to explain his "overseas relationship network," he tried to downplay it: these connections "developed naturally", he said, tied to his business interests, never malicious. He claimed he had every right to befriend foreigners who shared his values. However, the judgment dismantled that narrative paragraph by paragraph, tracing payments, meeting schedules, and coordinated lobbying campaigns.

The UK Pipeline

The British connection centered on Benedict Rogers, founder of Hong Kong Watch. Lai testified that he only met Rogers after Hong Kong authorities denied Rogers entry to the city, then stayed in touch via WhatsApp. Whenever Rogers wanted to publish an article in Apple Daily, he reached out to Lai directly.

Around 2019, Lai donated £20,000 to Hong Kong Watch, calling Rogers's work "meaningful" and claiming it "supported Hong Kong".

Lai claimed ignorance about Rogers serving as an adviser to the anti-China organization “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China” (IPAC). He insisted Rogers wasn't acting as a foreign agent or on Lai's behalf.

Yet, Rogers and Hong Kong Watch monitored Hong Kong developments, issued criticisms, and lobbied the UK government for action. Rogers maintained close ties with UK political figures including Lord David Alton and former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten.

Lai met Lord Alton through Rogers. On July 1, 2019, Alton gave Lai a tour of the Palace of Westminster and hosted him for afternoon tea. On November 24, 2019, when Lord Alton and Luke de Pulford—a founder of IPAC—came to Hong Kong to observe the District Council elections, Lai had dinner with them, arranged through Rogers.

Playing Dumb on IPAC

As for de Pulford, Lai testified he only met him once in Hong Kong in November 2019—at that dinner—and described him merely as Lord Alton's assistant. Lai claimed he never knew de Pulford was executive director of IPAC, and insisted that before the trial he'd never even heard of IPAC.

Lai said de Pulford only contacted him to publish articles in Apple Daily. He testified he never read de Pulford's articles, yet somehow knew de Pulford "was doing good for Hong Kong...working hard to speak well of Hong Kong."

The court rejected that testimony outright. The evidence showed extensive message exchanges between Lai, de Pulford, and Rogers, plus numerous Twitter posts and Apple Daily reports mentioning IPAC—making Lai's professed ignorance "laughable and not credible." The documentary record showed Lai knew exactly who these people were and what they did.

Regarding former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten, Lai said Patten called himself Lai's friend, but Lai didn't consider Patten his friend. Lai testified that while Patten served as Governor, they rarely met.

After the handover, whenever Patten visited Hong Kong, Lai met with him again—but they had no direct contact, communicating instead through Rogers or Anson Chan. After the National Security Law took effect, Patten had appeared as a guest on Lai's online livestream interview program.

The Taiwan Arrangement

The judgment detailed Lai's "Taiwan line," including connections to Tsai Ing-wen and her aide Chiang Chun-nan. Lai testified he first met Tsai at a banquet hosted by the US Consulate in Taiwan, around the time he founded Taiwan Apple Daily. After Tsai became Taiwan's leader, he met her again—meetings arranged through Chiang.

As for what they discussed, Lai said "sometimes it was about Taiwan policy," but claimed he couldn't clearly remember why he wanted to meet her initially. Lai testified that Tsai was "interested" in him because of his media connections. However, in court Lai didn't mention discussing US policy with Tsai or the Trump administration's attitudes toward Taiwan. Lai also claimed he was "a permanent resident of Taiwan, but not a citizen."

The intermediary between Lai and Tsai was Chiang Chun-nan. Lai testified that when he first met Chiang, Chiang was a well-known writer and columnist for Taiwan's Next Magazine. During Chen Shui-bian's administration, Chiang served as head of Taiwan's Government Security Office. After Tsai took office, Chiang held no formal position but effectively functioned as one of Tsai's key aides, according to Lai's testimony.

Lai recalled that one day, Chiang asked whether Lai knew anyone who could convey to Tsai the Trump administration's internal attitudes and thinking about Taiwan. Lai then introduced two Americans to Tsai: retired US General Jack Keane and former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Intelligence for Hire

Lai testified he believed Chiang knew about his close links with US think tanks and his support for Trump and the Republican Party—so it was "natural" for Chiang to ask him. Lai said he introduced these two former US military and defense officials to Tsai because he wanted to help Taiwan better understand how to deal with the United States.

But the judgment revealed Lai didn't just arrange for these two Americans to provide "intelligence" to Tsai Ing-wen—he also provided "payments" to Chiang Chun-nan at the same time. The judgment noted that even after Chiang stopped writing for Taiwan Apple Daily, he continued receiving salary payments. According to prosecution materials disclosed during trial, from November 2017 to February 2020, Taiwan Apple Daily paid Chiang approximately NT$5.8 million, and Lai never demanded repayment.

The court held that Lai was trying to ingratiate himself with Chiang so Chiang would facilitate Lai's access to Tsai Ing-wen. The court also viewed this as a "return" for Lai's relationship with Tsai—reflecting Lai's intention to serve the Taiwan authorities. Lai testified in response that "he had big business there (in Taiwan)," and even claimed he was a beneficiary of the Taiwan authorities.

Law ABC

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

A political party's decline begins the moment it abandons common sense.

Britain's ruling Labour Party is moving to repair ties with China, with party leader Keir Starmer planning a visit to Beijing. But one persistent thorn in Sino-British relations remains: London's foot-dragging on approving China's proposed grand new embassy. China bought the old Royal Mint site and wants to build there, but anti-China forces have mobilized against it on all sorts of political grounds.

On January 17, opponents staged another big protest in London. The rally was basically a jamboree of "all five poisons"—not just the usual exiled Hong Kong independence activists, but Tibetan and Xinjiang independence flags flying everywhere. Naturally, no Labour MPs showed up. But Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch did—making her the highest-ranking political figure to grace such an opposition event.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent

Missing the Bigger Picture

Hong Kong exiles in Britain seized on this for maximum propaganda value, crowing that even the Conservative Party leader came out to support them. I see it differently—as a sign of the Conservatives' decline. What politician with any real shot at becoming Britain's next Prime Minister would wade into such murky waters?

First, there are degrees to being anti-China. How does a rally opposing an embassy construction turn into a carnival featuring "all five poisons"? Having opinions about a country versus supporting independence movements within that country—these are two completely different things. For a major political figure to attend a rally plastered with propaganda for other countries' independence movements is itself highly inappropriate. Does this mean the Conservative Party backs Hong Kong independence and Tibetan independence? Don't talk to me about freedom of speech—politicians have the freedom not to attend extremist political rallies. If Chinese politicians showed up at rallies flying Northern Irish independence flags, how would the British government react?

Second, the Conservative Party lacks the presence of a governing party. According to old assumptions, we might think that with Labour's current abysmal approval ratings, the Conservatives would naturally take power next term—so they should act prudently and avoid extreme positions. But reality tells a different story. The Conservative Party has already declined to third-rate status. If Labour loses power next term, I'm afraid the Conservatives won't have a chance at governing either.

The Reform Party Surge

The ruling Labour Party's recent popularity has tanked, running neck and neck with the Conservatives. According to a poll published in January by British think tank More in Common, Conservative support stands at 21%, while Labour sits at 20%—the two parties evenly matched. But the far-right Reform Party enjoys 31% support, far ahead of both the Conservatives and Labour. If a general election were held, the Reform Party would achieve a sweeping victory. So no matter how you look at it, Badenoch doesn't have the bearing of a Prime Minister—she seems more like a radical white-left politician.

Third, major party politics must follow common sense. Many Western politicians now chase politically correct lines, doing whatever they think voters like—but these politically correct actions often violate basic common sense. For example, believing voters are anti-China, they specifically do anti-China things, but whether being anti-China actually benefits their own country is something they couldn't care less about.

Canada's 180-Degree Turn

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently visited China, comprehensively improving relations with Beijing. Just last year, Canada claimed "China is the greatest security threat facing Canada," but now Canada has turned 180 degrees, believing that compared to the United States, "China is a more predictable and reliable partner." Canada slashed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports from 100% to 6.1%. China also relaxed restrictions on imports of Canadian canola and other agricultural products. Canada now strongly welcomes Chinese investment in electric vehicles and clean energy sectors—China-Canada economic and trade relations have rapidly risen to a very close level.

The premise for this change is naturally Canada facing deep pressure from the United States. Trump has threatened to make Canada the 51st state. Under this pressure, Canada seeks to improve relations with China to rescue its economy. After Prime Minister Carney's visit to China, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are also queuing up to visit Beijing—all seeking to improve relations with China. In today's chaotic world, with Trump specifically bullying allies, improving relations with China has become the best way out for these Western countries. Western politicians only need sufficient common sense to find the answer in improving relations with China.

No Leadership Presence

Conservative Party leader Badenoch's attendance at an anti-China rally can only mean one thing: no matter how you look at it, she doesn't have the bearing to be British Prime Minister, nor the energy to lead Britain out of its predicament. By the way, the Conservative Party's election of an ethnic African leader is not "conservative" at all—it's actually quite radical. No wonder more conservative Britons have turned to support the far-right Reform Party.

Lo Wing-hung