Federal Court disclosures, altered contracts and millions in disputed buyer payments raise urgent questions for Adrian Campbell and Kinnara
The dispute surrounding the Marina Bay City development in Lombok has entered a decisive new phase following the publication of a Federal Court judgment, the emergence of disputed sales contracts and allegations that millions of dollars paid by property buyers never reached the Indonesian developer responsible for delivering their villas.
At the centre of the controversy is Adrian James Campbell, the head of Kinnara, who has publicly sought to place responsibility for the project’s delays and unbuilt villas on LUX Property Group and its founder, Jamie McIntyre.
LUX Property Group now alleges that the opposite occurred: that contracts were issued without the developer’s authority, bank details were altered so purchasers’ money would be directed to accounts controlled by third parties, and the contractual liability to construct the villas was left with the Indonesian developer despite it allegedly receiving only a fraction of the purchase funds.
Campbell and Kinnara dispute allegations of wrongdoing. The allegations concerning Marina Bay City have not been finally determined by a court, and all parties are entitled to respond.
A Federal Court case that produced an unexpected result
Campbell commenced Federal Court proceedings against McIntyre and obtained interim injunctions in May and June 2026.
However, on 20 August 2026, the Court discharged those interim orders. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Campbell had failed to disclose significant matters when seeking urgent relief, including matters concerning his criminal history, overseas residence and the nature of losses he claimed to have suffered.
Campbell was ordered to pay 80 per cent of McIntyre’s costs on an indemnity basis.
The judgment records that Campbell initially swore that he had never been prosecuted in Australia in relation to business practices and had never been convicted of a criminal offence. That evidence was subsequently corrected.
According to the published account of the judgment, Campbell’s disclosed history included fraud convictions in 2012, five Australian Consumer Law convictions in 2015 and recorded convictions in 2018 after he pleaded guilty to 11 charges of making false or misleading representations connected with Eco Boss Pty Ltd. The 2018 outcome included an $85,000 fine and an order to pay $102,200 in compensation.
The interlocutory judgment did not determine whether Campbell, Kinnara or any other party committed fraud in connection with Marina Bay City, GIM Trading or any other subsequent business. It nevertheless placed Campbell’s previously downplayed history squarely on the public record.
The central question: who received the buyers’ money?
The Marina Bay City controversy is ultimately an accounting question.
Who received the money paid by purchasers, how much reached the developer, and where did the balance go?
LUX Property Group says its review has identified approximately 95 buyer contracts, of which around 66 were paid in whole or in part. It alleges that approximately A$10 million was collected through Kinnara-associated accounts, offshore company accounts or an account operated by Hilton Wood as a purported payment-transfer service.
According to figures attributed to a Kinnara-commissioned review, approximately A$3.18 million was transferred to PT Bali Real Estate Investments, or BREI, with a further approximately A$494,000 subsequently remitted.
If those figures are accurate, they would indicate that only approximately A$3.67 million of an alleged A$10 million collected reached the Indonesian development company—leaving approximately A$6.3 million requiring explanation and reconciliation.
Those numbers remain allegations advanced by LUX and should be tested against complete bank statements, contracts, receipts, commission records and purchaser ledgers. However, LUX argues that the figures contained in Kinnara’s own accounting material are inconsistent with any suggestion that the developer received all the money required to deliver the contracted villas.
“Once the payment trail is examined, the public narrative changes completely,” McIntyre said.
“The developer was allegedly left carrying 100 per cent of the obligation to provide the land, approvals, infrastructure and construction, while in many cases the purchase money was directed elsewhere. You cannot withhold the development funds and then blame the developer because construction has not been completed.”
The alleged contract mechanism
LUX alleges that the payment-diversion system was surprisingly simple.
Under the alleged arrangement, off-the-plan villa contracts named the Indonesian developer—or an associated LUX development company—as the party responsible for constructing and delivering the property.
The contractual liability therefore remained with the developer.
However, LUX alleges that contracts were issued without its knowledge or authority and that payment instructions were inserted or substituted directing purchasers to pay:
* Kinnara-controlled or associated accounts;
* offshore Hong Kong company accounts;
* other company accounts allegedly controlled or nominated by Campbell; or
* an account operated by Hilton Wood and represented to purchasers as an independent payment-transfer service.
In some cases, LUX alleges that 100 per cent of the purchaser’s money was directed to third-party accounts while the developer named in the contract received only a partial payment—or no corresponding payment at all.
The resulting structure, if established, would create a dangerous mismatch: one entity would hold the legal obligation to build, while another controlled the purchase proceeds needed to meet that obligation.
LUX says it did not authorise Campbell or Kinnara to issue contracts on its behalf, substitute offshore bank details or retain purchaser funds that were required for development.
Campbell and Kinnara should be given a full opportunity to identify the contractual authority on which they rely, produce the complete banking trail and explain the commercial basis for every deduction or retained payment.
The claimed “independent” transfer account
Particular scrutiny is now being directed towards Hilton Wood.
According to LUX, purchasers were told that an account associated with Wood was being used as an independent transfer or payment-processing mechanism. LUX now challenges that description and alleges that Wood had longstanding business connections with Campbell.
Independently, ABC News confirmed that Wood was the previous owner of Global Investment Marketing Pty Ltd, known as GIM Trading. Wood told the ABC that he sold the company before it raised investor money and that it was transferred without clients. The later public face of GIM, Stephen Cubis, disputed aspects of the purported sale and said he had not purchased the company.
The ABC reported that the National Anti-Scam Centre had received reports of almost A$8 million in losses linked to GIM Trading. Investors believed they were purchasing low-risk government and corporate bonds, but several institutions told the ABC that they had no relationship with GIM or that its representations involved fraudulent activity.
That reporting establishes Wood’s former ownership of GIM Trading, but it does not establish that Campbell participated in the alleged GIM fraud. Campbell denies involvement, and no court has found otherwise.
Nevertheless, LUX argues that Wood’s role in handling Marina Bay City payments must be independently examined. If the account was presented as independent, purchasers are entitled to know:
* Who legally controlled it?
* Who could authorise transfers?
* What relationship existed between Wood, Campbell and Kinnara?
* How much purchaser money entered the account?
* How much was transferred to the developer?
* What deductions were made and on whose authority?
* Where was the remaining money sent?
Equity allegedly obtained through unfulfilled promises
The dispute extends beyond purchaser payments.
McIntyre alleges that Campbell and Kinnara promised to introduce seven major independent purchasers through Kinnara’s sales platform in exchange for a 50 per cent interest in the Marina Bay City venture.
LUX claims that the promised independent sales were never delivered. Its review allegedly identified only a small number of genuinely independent purchasers introduced through Kinnara, while other buyers were already part of the developer’s existing database or had originally approached Marina Bay City through LUX-associated channels.
LUX alleges that purchaser information and sales leads belonging to the development were subsequently used to market contracts through Kinnara-controlled channels.
It further alleges that part of the disputed purchaser money was later represented as Campbell or Kinnara’s capital contribution towards land and project expenses.
If proven, that would mean money originating from the project’s buyers may have been presented as an equity partner’s own investment. That allegation requires forensic accounting and a contract-by-contract comparison of the source, destination and stated purpose of every payment.
From payment dispute to public-relations war
As questions grew about the missing development funds, the commercial dispute became a public-relations battle.
Campbell and Kinnara published allegations against McIntyre and LUX, portraying the developer as responsible for the failure to complete purchasers’ villas. Some Australian media reports adopted significant portions of that account and focused on the developer’s obligations without fully resolving which entities had received the purchasers’ money.
McIntyre alleges that this campaign was designed to confuse purchasers, shift responsibility and discourage scrutiny of the contracts and bank accounts.
“In my opinion, this was an attempt to reverse the roles of the alleged victim and perpetrator,” McIntyre said.
“The party accused of retaining the project money presented itself as the party protecting investors, while the developer allegedly deprived of those funds was blamed for not completing construction.”
Campbell and Kinnara have denied wrongdoing and have themselves made serious allegations concerning McIntyre and the management of the development. Those competing claims remain disputed.
The answer will not be found in competing press releases. It will be found in original contracts, bank statements, corporate records and written authorisations.
Why the Federal Court disclosures matter
The Federal Court did not determine the Marina Bay City accounting dispute. Nor did it find that Campbell committed any new offence.
However, the judgment is significant because it examined the accuracy and completeness of evidence Campbell provided when asking the Court for urgent orders restricting McIntyre’s publications.
The Court’s conclusion that important matters were not properly disclosed—and its decision to discharge the injunctions—undermines attempts to treat Campbell’s public account as beyond question.
It also makes independent scrutiny more important. A party seeking to rely upon credibility while accusing others of misconduct must provide complete and accurate disclosure of its own history and financial dealings.
The public record now shows that Campbell’s history was materially more extensive than initially presented to the Court. That does not prove LUX’s current allegations, but it makes demands for complete banking transparency both reasonable and necessary.
GIM Trading: important connections, but no concluded case against Campbell
GIM Trading provides a separate warning about the risks created when impressive corporate branding, apparently legitimate credentials and seemingly professional payment structures conceal the true movement of investor money.
ABC’s investigation reported that approximately 80 Australians paid around A$23 million into GIM Trading accounts for purported bond investments. The report stated that Wood was GIM’s previous owner and that Cubis had been installed as its public-facing director despite having no financial-services background.
The ABC also reported that GIM lacked its own Australian financial services licence and had operated for a period as an authorised representative of another licence holder. Multiple financial institutions denied having the relationships represented in GIM’s promotional material, while Queensland Police confirmed receiving cybercrime reports concerning an alleged investment scam.
Campbell’s alleged connection to GIM remains disputed and unproven. It should not be stated as an established fact that he participated in the alleged GIM fraud.
The legitimate investigative issue is narrower: whether relationships between Campbell, Wood and related companies had any bearing on the handling of Marina Bay City purchaser funds. That question can be resolved through corporate records, banking evidence and sworn testimony.
The documents that should now be produced
A credible investigation should require the production of:
1. Every version of every Marina Bay City purchaser contract.
2. Metadata showing when each contract was created, amended and issued.
3. The original bank details supplied by the developer.
4. Every subsequent change to those payment instructions.
5. Written authority—if any—permitting Kinnara, Campbell, Wood or another party to issue or amend contracts.
6. Complete statements for all Australian, Indonesian, Hong Kong and other accounts receiving purchaser funds.
7. A purchaser-by-purchaser reconciliation showing amounts paid, recipient accounts, deductions, commissions and amounts remitted to the developer.
8. Records concerning the account described as an independent payment-transfer service.
9. The Kinnara audit and all working papers used to produce its figures.
10. Evidence supporting any claimed capital contributions by Campbell or Kinnara.
11. Communications concerning the promised introduction of seven major independent purchasers.
12. Records showing whether existing Marina Bay City leads or purchaser information were used to sell other projects.
Until these materials are produced, neither side’s public narrative should substitute for a complete forensic accounting.
A warning for international property investors
Lombok remains one of Indonesia’s most promising emerging property markets. The Marina Bay City dispute should not be treated as an indictment of Lombok or legitimate development across the island.
It should instead serve as a warning about intermediaries presenting themselves as real-estate platforms, marketing agencies or independent payment-transfer providers.
Before paying for an off-the-plan property, purchasers should independently confirm:
* the legal identity of the developer;
* whether the person issuing the contract is authorised by that developer;
* whether the receiving bank account belongs to the contractual developer;
* why any payment is being directed to an offshore or third-party account;
* whether a purportedly independent payment service has relationships with the promoter;
* what percentage of the purchase price reaches the developer;
* who carries the contractual construction liability; and
* whether planning, land and building approvals have been independently verified.
A professional website, sophisticated marketing campaign or well-presented contract does not prove that the receiving account belongs to the company responsible for construction.
The questions Campbell and Kinnara must answer
The controversy can be narrowed to several direct questions:
* Did Campbell or Kinnara issue Marina Bay City contracts without written authority from LUX or BREI?
* Were developer bank details changed to accounts controlled by or associated with third parties?
* How much purchaser money was collected in total?
* Why did only approximately A$3.67 million allegedly reach the developer if approximately A$10 million was collected?
* What happened to the balance?
* Was Hilton Wood’s payment account genuinely independent?
* Were purchaser funds used or represented as capital contributions?
* Were existing developer clients or leads treated as independently introduced Kinnara clients?
* Why have complete bank statements and purchaser reconciliations not been publicly or independently produced?
Campbell and Kinnara are entitled to answer these allegations and provide documents contradicting LUX’s account.
But the burden of explanation cannot be met through attacks, slogans or accusations against the developer. It requires an auditable trail showing where every purchaser’s money went.
Transparency is now unavoidable
The Marina Bay City dispute is no longer merely an argument about delayed construction.
It is a dispute about authority, contractual liability and the destination of millions of dollars paid by purchasers.
If LUX’s allegations are substantiated, the mechanism was not complicated: place the development liability in one company, direct the purchase money to another, remit only a fraction to the developer and then blame that developer when the villas cannot be completed.
If the allegations are wrong, Campbell and Kinnara should be able to disprove them by producing the contractual authority, full bank records and a purchaser-by-purchaser reconciliation.
McIntyre says LUX remains committed to building the villas for legitimate Marina Bay City purchasers but maintains that the disputed funds must be returned to the project.
“There is no substitute for the money required to construct the villas,” he said.
“If approximately A$6 million to A$7 million belonging to the development has been retained elsewhere, it must be accounted for and returned. The buyers deserve their properties, and they deserve the truth.”
The next stage should therefore be driven by evidence: every contract, every amendment, every receiving account and every transfer.
Until that evidence is disclosed, the central question remains unanswered:
Who received the Marina Bay City purchasers’ money—and where is it now?
Editorial and legal note: The Marina Bay City allegations in this article are claims advanced by Jamie McIntyre and LUX Property Group and remain disputed. They have not been finally determined by a court. The Federal Court proceeding concerned interlocutory injunctions, disclosure, jurisdiction and costs; it did not determine the substantive Marina Bay City or GIM Trading allegations. Campbell denies involvement in the alleged GIM Trading fraud. References to criminal history distinguish recorded convictions from historical charges or unresolved allegations. All relevant parties should be offered a reasonable opportunity to respond before publication.
