Joshua Wong has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security. Reports differ over whether sentencing took place on 2 September 2026 or was adjourned, so the date and final term remain unclear.
The charge concerns alleged conduct between 1 July and 23 November 2020. Wong is accused of conspiring with Nathan Law and other unidentified people in Hong Kong to request that foreign governments, organisations or individuals impose sanctions, a blockade or other hostile actions against Hong Kong or China.
According to prosecution allegations reported by Star Headline, the activities included meetings with foreign officials, lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, and calls for foreign sanctions against China and Hong Kong. The report also said the case involved a joint appeal for foreign countries to stop supplying forensic software to the Hong Kong police.
i-CABLE reported that prosecutors alleged Wong and Law had reached an agreement as early as 2016 to conduct international lobbying. The prosecution’s case was that, after the national security law came into force, the two continued to seek foreign sanctions while Wong remained in Hong Kong and Law was overseas.
The defence accepted that the case was serious but argued that it should not be classified as a “serious offence”. It said the court could impose a substantial sentence within the three-to-10-year imprisonment range. The defence also argued that Wong had reduced his social media activity after August 2020 and that his arrest in 2025 represented prosecution delay, affecting the possibility of serving this sentence concurrently with other terms.
Reports say an offence of this type generally carries three to 10 years in prison. If classified as a “serious offence”, however, the possible range is 10 years to life imprisonment.
Wong was already serving a sentence in the democratic camp’s “35-plus” primary subversion case; one report gave the term as four years and eight months.
The supplied reports also do not explain how a guilty plea reported in the Magistrates’ Court in May relates to the plea and proceedings reported in the High Court in September. The final sentence and the outcome of the September proceedings cannot therefore be confirmed from the available reports.