Hong Kong appeals court overturns Jimmy Lai’s fraud conviction

Surprise ruling comes weeks after the media mogul was convicted and jailed for 20 years on national security charges.Published On 26 Feb 2026A Hong Kong appellate court has overturned a fraud conviction against pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai in a surprise ruling weeks after his jailing for 20 years on a separate national security charge.The ruling by the Court of First Instance on Thursday said that it allowed the appeal from Lai and ⁠another defendant in the case to proceed as a lower court judge had “erred”.Recommended Stories list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4Jimmy Lai sentenced: What happened to other HK pro-democracy protesters?list 2 of 4‘Evil deeds’: Hong Kong leader praises lengthy jail sentence for Jimmy Lailist 3 of 4Hong Kong court rejects appeal in landmark subversion caselist 4 of 4Hong Kong conglomerate says Panama Canal ports seized by authoritiesend of list“[We] allow the appeals, quash the convictions and set aside the sentences,” the judges wrote.The conviction that was overturned was from an earlier fraud case in which prosecutors alleged that a consultancy firm operated by Lai, 78, for his personal use had taken up office space that his now defunct media business – Apple Daily – rented for publication and printing purposes.This was in breach of the terms of the lease Apple Daily signed with a government company and amounted to fraud, prosecutors said.Lai had been sentenced to five years and nine months in prison in 2022 on the two fraud charges.Former Apple Daily executive Wong Wai-keung was also charged in the same case and jailed for 21 months.Judges at the Court of Appeal wrote in their judgement that while Apple Daily Printing had breached the lease terms by allowing the firm to use part of the space, it didn’t owe a duty to disclose its breach. They said even if it had owed and breached that duty, the same could not be attributed to Lai and Wong as a matter of law.The trial judges’ “reasoning in concluding that the applicants were liable for the concealment as the prosecution contended is unsupportable”, they said.Neither defendant appeared in court.