Jimmy Lai Found Guilty of Collusion and Sedition in Landmark Hong Kong National Security Trial

HONG KONG — The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has delivered a guilty verdict against media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying on charges of colluding with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious material. The judgment, handed down on 15 December 2025 by a panel of three designated national security judges, marks the conclusion of a high-profile trial involving the founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper.

Lai, 78, faced three charges: one count of conspiracy to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, display and/or reproduce seditious publications; and two counts of conspiracy to commit collusion with a foreign state or external elements to endanger national security. The verdict also applies to three companies related to the media outlet: Apple Daily Limited, Apple Daily Printing Limited and AD Internet Limited.

The Court’s Findings

In a lengthy written judgment, Judges Esther Toh, Susana D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee ruled that Jimmy Lai was the “mastermind” of the conspiracies. The court found that Lai utilised Apple Daily as a platform to orchestrate a campaign against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.

The prosecution’s case, which the court accepted, posited that Lai had used his media influence to request foreign states to impose “sanctions, blockade or engage in other hostile activities” (referred to as SBHA in the judgment) against the People’s Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The judgment detailed that between 1 April 2019 and 24 June 2021, Apple Daily published 161 articles identified by the prosecution as seditious. The judges determined these articles were published with the intent to bring the central and local authorities into hatred or contempt. The court rejected the defence’s argument that Lai was merely exercising freedom of speech or engaging in legitimate political activity. Instead, the verdict stated that Lai’s actions went beyond permissible boundaries and constituted a deliberate deployment of his media organisation to implement a political agenda aligned with his “radical” anti-China stance.

The Court’s Findings

A significant portion of the judgment focused on Jimmy Lai’s relationship with his personal assistant, Mark Simon. The court found that Simon acted as a conduit between Lai and various senior officials in the United States of America’s government. Evidence cited included WhatsApp and Signal messages indicating that Simon arranged meetings for Jimmy Lai with high-ranking North American figures, including the then-Vice President and the Foreign Minister, to lobby for actions against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments.

The judges also highlighted Lai’s “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai” programme, broadcast on Apple Daily’s platforms. The court determined these broadcasts were used to solicit international support and advocate for foreign intervention, even after the National Security Law came into effect on 30 June 2020. The verdict noted that Lai’s intention to request sanctions did not abate following the implementation of the NSL but rather continued through a “more indirect and subtle strategy.”

Furthermore, the judgment referenced internal management meetings at Apple Daily, known as “lunchbox meetings.” The court accepted testimony from former Apple Daily executives — who turned prosecution witnesses — that Lai used these meetings to issue editorial directions aligning the paper’s coverage with his political objectives.

International Reactions

The verdict has drawn immediate reactions from international observers and press freedom organisations. Reporters Without Borders issued a statement strongly condemning the decision. The organisation described the proceedings as a “sham trial” and called for the immediate release of the British citizen. The organisation urged the United Kingdom government to take decisive action in response to the conviction of a British passport holder.

Financial news outlets noted the geopolitical implications of the verdict. Reports highlighted that the trial is viewed by European and neo-European governments as a barometer for the rule of law in the Asian financial hub. The case has been closely monitored by foreign consulates, with diplomats present at the court throughout the proceedings.

Security and Context

Security around the West Kowloon Law Courts Building was reportedly tight as the verdict was delivered. Police maintained a significant presence, deploying armoured vehicles and officers to patrol the perimeter.

The three associated companies — Apple Daily Limited, Apple Daily Printing Limited and AD Internet Limited — were also found guilty on the respective charges. The court ruled that the corporate defendants, through their directors and senior management, were knowingly involved in the conspiracy to use the publication as a tool for foreign collusion and sedition.

This judgment follows a trial that spanned over 90 days, involving extensive examination of Lai’s personal messages, financial records and public statements. The defence had argued that Jimmy Lai was a businessman and social activist who advocated for peaceful protests and that Apple Daily operated with editorial independence. However, the court dismissed these claims, concluding that Lai exercised full control over the media group’s editorial policy to further a conspiratorial agreement to endanger national security.

Sentencing for Jimmy Lai and the corporate defendants will take place at a later date. Under the National Security Law, collusion offences of a “grave nature” can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Commentary

The verdict against Jimmy Lai and the respective reactions in this case underline the dangers of media influence in the political context, especially for national security. On the other hand, operative questions arise: Where is the line between freedom of speech and national security? Unfortunately, the qualitative nature of such a discussion, as well as the varying interests in the case, makes it difficult to come to a conclusion that all sides are satisfied with. In reality, these cases are a mix of interests and the exploitation of grey zones of freedom of speech.

Therefore, it is paramount for each nation to contain foreign involvement in domestic affairs. Further, each nation needs to have codified cultural constitutions with set national goals and a normative framework that the society needs to adhere to. This serves as a measurement in cases like this and many others. This would also help nations like the United Kingdom, which has the most people imprisoned for internet comments, to make better assessments of whether freedom of speech is infringed or not.