By Eunice Yung
The decision by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to apply for the confiscation of Jimmy Lai Chee-Ying's crime-related assets marks a critical development in the ongoing protection of national security and the resilience of social order. Recent judicial rulings confirmed that Lai's actions constituted grave threats to the security and well-being of Hong Kong. In the wake of these convictions, the government's move to pursue the proceeds and instruments of such offences is as essential as it is logical. I see the pathway chosen by the authorities—and ratified by high-minded judicial oversight—not as a punitive flourish, but as a mature, calibrated tool of safeguarding our society from further threat.
The rationale behind asset confiscation is both clear and longstanding. No criminal enterprise thrives on ideology alone; resources and funding are the oxygen of any sustained campaign against the stability of a society. The facts revealed in the Lai case, painstakingly sifted by our courts, lay bare the direct role played by substantial finances, property, and media assets in orchestrating and amplifying activities that placed Hong Kong's security at risk.
Here, the legal basis is robust. Pursuant to the National Security Law for the HKSAR and local statutes, assets associated with serious endangerment of state security—whether as the proceeds of crime or as the very instruments enabling it—are liable to confiscation by the courts, upon the application of the government and a fair hearing for all parties. These confiscation proceedings are neither arbitrary nor excessive; they are grounded in evidence, subject to review, and mindful of the rights at stake. Notably, this is a process that flows not from political will, but from judicial reasoning and statutory authority.
The wisdom of such policy finds strong roots in international legal practice. Asset confiscation has been recognized globally as an indispensable weapon in the fight against organized crime, terrorism, and activities threatening national stability. A look into legal history shows that confiscation mechanisms have been used for decades, from prosecution of wartime profiteering to dismantling modern money-laundering and terror-financing networks. This is not merely an innovation for Hong Kong, but a well-established approach observed around the world.
The key concept is "cutting the financial chain"—ensuring that the resources used to facilitate or reward misdeeds are rendered unavailable for further abuse. In the context of national security, this principle is even more pertinent, because individuals who conspire to harm the city's constitutional order or to endanger public safety often operate with the backing of sizable financial networks. The experience of many jurisdictions points to the same truth: so long as such networks remain intact, the risk of coordinated, well-financed harm survives every conviction.
Hong Kong's own framework, as articulated in both the NSL and supporting ordinances, sets procedural and evidentiary safeguards for asset confiscation. The government must apply through the courts, offering evidence and legal argument; the subject of the order can contest the evidence and challenge any overreach. The courts, for their part, are guided both by the strictures of the rule of law and by the necessity to ensure that innocent third parties are not swept up in enforcement. Only after a thorough and transparent process can confiscation proceed.
What distinguishes the Lai case, however, is the scale and sophistication of resource deployment for illicit ends. The networks, assets, and media operations involved in his criminal campaign were vast and well-connected—an entire infrastructure bent toward persistent destabilization, not a fleeting or impulsive act. Allowing the assets tied to these operations to remain in place would not only reward wrongdoing but preserve the logistical bedrock for potential future danger.
Moreover, allowing such resources to rest in the hands of those found guilty of undermining state security would undermine the credibility of our entire justice process. Public trust demands not only that those who break the law are held personally accountable, but that the assets made part and parcel of criminal designs are removed from circulation, ensuring that crime does notpay—neither to the individual nor to their associates or successors.
Importantly, Hong Kong's courts have continued to uphold a careful balance: they reject the idea of "blanket immunity" for assets, even if labeled as "news materials" or business-related property, but equally insist on procedural fairness, open hearings, and the right to challenge every stage of the process. This judicial discipline assures observers, both domestic and abroad, that asset confiscation in this context is not a tool of caprice, but of necessity and justice.
Hong Kong's Basic Law and other statutes rightly uphold freedoms of expression, property, and press, these safeguards are not—and can never be—an absolute shield for criminal conduct. When assets, of whatever character, become integral to campaigns that threaten lives, harm society, or invite foreign provocation, law and court alike are right to act with resolve.
Ultimately, the confiscation application against Jimmy Lai is not an isolated episode, but the logical conclusion of a process that began with thorough investigation, continued through transparent prosecution, and now seeks to ensure completeness in enforcement. It is an act to shelter society from further harm and to reaffirm to all—both friend and adversary—that this city will not permit its peace, prosperity, or autonomy to be bought, subverted, or undermined by the strategic deployment of wealth.
Asset confiscation in this context is not an act of vengeance. It is the prudent, necessary and internationally recognized means by which Hong Kong closes the loopholes that crime and conspiracy exploit. It sends a message: that the city's security, and the rightful expectations of its people, are defended not only by talk, but by decisive, lawful and proportionate action.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Opinion | Two Sessions: Hong Kong's unique mission in China's new era of modernization
Comment