Lai was granted bail on Dec. 23 after three months in custody on charges of fraud and threatening national security.
The court stated Thursday it had been”reasonably arguable” that the prior judge’s conclusion was incorrect and the arrangement of granting bond was invalid.
Lai is one of a series of pro-democracy activists and supporters detained by Hong Kong authorities in recent weeks as police step up their crackdown on dissent from the semi-autonomous Chinese land.
He had been charged with fraud on Dec. 3 for supposedly violating the lease provisions for the office area for the Following Digital, the press firm he founded. He was charged back on Dec. 12 beneath the sweeping national safety legislation imposed by Beijing on the feeling of colluding with foreign forces and undermining national security.
Lai entered the Court of Final Appeal without any remarks to media and supporters, a lot of whom swarmed the tycoon because he made his way to the court. His bail conditions contained surrendering his travel records along with also a ban on meeting with foreign officials, publishing articles on almost any networking, posting on social networking, and providing interviews.
Chinese state-owned newspaper People’s Daily published a strongly worded comment on Sunday criticizing the court for granting bail to Lai, saying that it”seriously hurt Hong Kong’s rule of law”
The People’s Daily reported it wouldn’t be hard for Lai to abscond, also called him”infamous and incredibly dangerous.” Additionally, it cautioned that China could assume the instance, based on Article 55 of the federal security law that claims that China could”exercise authority over a case regarding offense threatening national security”
Hong Kong’s judiciary on Tuesday published a 19-page decision on its site, laying out the reasons why High Court Judge Justice Alex Lee had awarded Lai bail. Lee reported he was satisfied there was no flight risk in Lai’s situation, also noticed that Lai was prepared to have his motions monitored if it was a viable choice.
He did so” to spend more time coping with this particular affairs” and verified he did not disagree with the board of supervisors, the filing stated.