{"id":244923,"date":"2022-12-13T17:19:01","date_gmt":"2022-12-14T01:19:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=244923"},"modified":"2023-01-24T16:20:54","modified_gmt":"2023-01-25T00:20:54","slug":"still-awaiting-nsl-trial-jimmy-lai-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years-in-prison-for-fraud","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2022\/12\/still-awaiting-nsl-trial-jimmy-lai-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years-in-prison-for-fraud\/","title":{"rendered":"Still Awaiting NSL Trial, Jimmy Lai Sentenced to Nearly Six Years in Prison for Fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Saturday, a Hong Kong court sentenced pro-democracy figure and former Apple Daily owner Jimmy Lai to <\/span>almost six years in prison on fraud charges<\/span><\/a> related to a contractual dispute. Lai\u2019s co-defendant and administrative director of Apple Daily\u2019s parent company Next Digital, Wong Wai Keung, was <\/span>sentenced to 21 months in jail<\/span><\/a>. Following their conviction in October, Lai\u2019s sentencing this weekend also includes a fine of two million Hong Kong dollars. The sentencing marks the latest step in an ongoing series of legal cases the Hong Kong government has waged against Lai, whom many human rights organizations argue is being scapegoated in order to further stifle free expression in the territory. Austin Ramzy from The Wall Street Journal reported on <\/span>the arguments surrounding Lai\u2019s sentencing<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

He was sentenced in the fraud case by district court judge Stanley Chan to five years and nine months for using part of the headquarters of his media company, Next Digital, to house a small private consulting company in violation of the terms of the lease with a government-run industrial park.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] Defense lawyers argued that the consulting company, which provided secretarial and other services, was related to the overall publishing work Next Digital, and its office space was so small as not to warrant such a serious legal penalty.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court found that \u201cthe fraud scheme was not sophisticated,\u201d but said aggravating factors supported Mr. Lai\u2019s punishment, including the 21-year length of lease arrangements, cost savings for the company and tax benefits for Mr. Lai. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201c<\/span>Don\u2019t draw any connection to politics<\/span><\/a>,\u201d the judge stated, with the Hong Kong government adding that Lai\u2019s jailing \u201c<\/span>has nothing to do with freedom of the press or freedom of speech<\/span><\/a>.\u201d However, human rights NGOs viewed the outcome as another example of the government eroding basic rights. \u201cThe diversity of the charges held against Jimmy Lai, and the staggering severity of the sentences imposed on him, <\/span>show how desperate the Chinese regime is to silence this symbolic figure of press freedom in Hong Kong<\/span><\/a>,\u201d said C\u00e9dric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders East Asia Bureau Head. Condemning the \u201cgrossly unjust outcome\u201d of the trial, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price stated, \u201c<\/span>By any objective measure, this result is neither fair nor just<\/span><\/a>.\u201d The Chinese-state-run Global Times responded: \u201c<\/span>Ned Price should keep his mouth shut<\/span><\/a> and should not comment on Hong Kong’s domestic affairs,\u201d and noted that Lai’s case “will serve as an alert to youngsters.”<\/span><\/p>\n

PEN International described <\/span>Lai\u2019s \u201cdisproportionate sentencing\u201d as the \u201clatest alarming sign of the erosion of freedom of expression in the territory\u201d<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe spurious sentencing of Jimmy Lai to almost six years\u2019 imprisonment on 10 December 2022 – a date that marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – is a damning illustration of how the right to freedom of expression has been undermined in Hong Kong. PEN International calls on the PRC and Hong Kong governments to end this miscarriage of justice and to immediately and unconditionally release Jimmy Lai,\u201d said […] Ma Thida, Chair of PEN International\u2019s Writers in Prison Committee. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In addition to this sentencing, Lai is also facing a much more severe legal trial under the National Security Law, whereby he could face life in prison for charges of colluding with foreign forces. Presiding over this other trial are three handpicked national security judges, who on Tuesday decided to <\/span>adjourn the case until September 25, 2023<\/span><\/a>. Hong Kong Free Press <\/span>reported<\/span><\/a> that the delay was in fact proposed by Lai\u2019s legal team partly in order to allow his preferred lawyer, a British citizen, to complete other cases in early 2023, as well as allow the three judges to oversee their own other cases. Brian Wong and Edith Lin from the South China Morning Post summarized <\/span>the legal battle over the eligibility of Lai\u2019s lawyer<\/strong><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

Lai, who turned 75 last week, won permission from the High Court\u2019s chief judge in October to hire London-based King\u2019s Counsel Timothy Owen to lead his defence in the trial over charges of collusion with foreign forces.<\/span><\/p>\n

In late November, the Court of Final Appeal cited technical grounds in dismissing the justice secretary\u2019s last-ditch attempt to overturn the lower court\u2019s ruling allowing the representation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The top judges, however, left open the overarching question of whether legal practitioners from abroad should in principle be excluded from national security cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu asked the standing committee [of China\u2019s National People\u2019s Congress] to decide whether allowing overseas lawyers to take part in national security trials should be allowed given the sensitive nature of the proceedings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Immigration Department has withheld Owen\u2019s application for an extension of his working visa, having previously been allowed to take up another case in the city. [<\/span>Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Is the immigration department of HK above the Court of Final Appeal? When the government itself disrespects the independent court, how can they tell the business community that the authorities would uphold the rule of law and judicial independence? https:\/\/t.co\/B8Enw66JKf<\/a><\/p>\n

— Eric Yan-ho Lai \u9ece\u6069\u705d (@laiyanhoeric) December 13, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n