CONVICTED FRAUD OFFENDER ADRIAN CAMPBELL ACCUSED OF CONTINUING MARINA BAY CITY “COPYCAT” CAMPAIGN
LUX Property Group demands action over disputed branding, purchaser funds and continued online promotion
Adrian James Campbell and his Kinnara Group are facing renewed accusations of using Marina Bay City’s identity and digital assets to promote projects and solicit further investor interest—despite Campbell’s failed Federal Court injunction bid, the withdrawal of his Indonesian court action and the public disclosure of his extensive criminal history.
A recently launched website, MarinaBaySeafood.com, openly announces a restaurant “coming soon to Marina Bay City Lombok.” It claims the proposed venue forms part of the Marina Bay City master plan and expressly states that “Marina Bay City Lombok is developed by Kinnara Capital.”
That representation is strongly disputed by LUX Property Group, which alleges that Campbell and Kinnara have no authority to hold themselves out as the developer of Marina Bay City or to continue using the project’s identity and associated digital assets.
The website is not merely making a passing reference to the former project. It presents an entire hospitality concept as part of a supposed Marina Bay City precinct and directs visitors toward Kinnara Capital. The obvious question is: what land, permits, construction, funding and legal authority support these representations?
According to LUX Property Group, the answer has not been provided.
Campbell’s Attempt to Suppress His History Backfires
Campbell’s credibility suffered a major setback in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279.
The Federal Court discharged interim injunctions Campbell had obtained against LUX Property Group founder Jamie McIntyre and ordered Campbell to pay 80 per cent of McIntyre’s interim-application costs on an indemnity basis.
Justice Derrington found that Campbell had “substantially downplayed” his criminal history when seeking urgent relief from the Court.
The judgment records that Campbell:
* was convicted of fraud offences in 2012;
* was convicted in 2015 of five Australian Consumer Law offences involving payments accepted for goods or services that were not supplied;
* was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $18,355 in restitution in relation to those offences; and
* pleaded guilty in 2018 to 11 charges of making false or misleading representations, receiving an $85,000 fine, a $102,200 compensation order and recorded convictions.
The injunctions Campbell sought have now been discharged. His attempt to suppress discussion of his history instead resulted in that history being recorded in a publicly available Federal Court judgment.
The decision did not finally determine the parties’ competing allegations concerning Marina Bay City. It did, however, destroy any suggestion that Campbell’s criminal record was simply an invention by his critics.
The Eco Boss Precedent
Campbell’s 2018 convictions arose from representations connected with Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
LUX Property Group alleges that the Marina Bay City controversy bears troubling similarities to Campbell’s earlier conduct: adopt the identity or credibility of an established operation, collect money using representations about products or rights, distance himself from responsibility when delivery fails and then attack the legitimate business or developer through an aggressive publicity campaign.
Campbell pleaded guilty in 2018 to 11 charges of making false or misleading representations. Contemporary reports described customers paying substantial amounts for products or commercial opportunities that were not delivered as represented.
LUX alleges that Campbell is now employing a comparable strategy around Marina Bay City: continuing to use the project’s name, presenting Kinnara as its developer, promoting new concepts under that identity and attempting to transfer responsibility for undelivered villas to an Indonesian developer that allegedly never received much of the purchaser money.
Where Did the Purchasers’ Money Go?
LUX Property Group alleges that contracts were issued or altered without its authority, including contracts directing purchasers to send funds to Kinnara-associated Hong Kong accounts and other accounts allegedly controlled by Campbell or his associates.
In some cases, LUX alleges, 100 per cent of a purchaser’s money was directed offshore while 100 per cent of the contractual construction liability was placed in the name of an Indonesian developer.
LUX also alleges that Hilton Wood was presented to purchasers as providing an independent payment-transfer service, without adequate disclosure of his previous business relationship with Campbell.
These remain serious and disputed allegations. They require determination through the appropriate courts, police investigations and financial tracing processes. Campbell and Kinnara should be invited to publish complete transaction records identifying:
* every Marina Bay City purchaser payment received;
* the account into which each payment was deposited;
* every transfer subsequently made from those accounts;
* the amount ultimately remitted to the Indonesian developer;
* the legal authority relied upon when issuing or changing purchaser contracts; and
* the villas, infrastructure or other assets produced with the money.
A glossy website containing photographs of oysters, tropical beaches and promised oceanfront dining is no substitute for contracts, bank records, permits and completed construction.
GIM Trading Questions Must Be Reported Accurately
Campbell has also been accused of having links to figures associated with GIM Trading, including its former owner Hilton Wood.
An ABC 7.30 investigation reported that GIM Trading was accused of defrauding ordinary Australians who believed they were purchasing low-risk corporate and government bonds. The ABC reported that approximately $23 million was paid into GIM Trading accounts and that Hilton Wood had previously owned the company.
However, Campbell denies involvement in the GIM Trading operation, and no court has found that he participated in that alleged fraud. Any claimed connection must therefore be described as an allegation requiring investigation—not as an established judicial finding.
The legitimate public-interest question remains: what was the complete commercial relationship between Campbell and Wood, and was it properly disclosed to Marina Bay City purchasers asked to send money through Wood-associated arrangements?
Promises Are Not Projects
Kinnara has promoted itself as a substantial Southeast Asian real-estate and development platform. LUX Property Group challenges that representation and says Campbell and Kinnara should identify every completed development and villa they have independently constructed and delivered.
LUX further alleges that Kinnara promised to bring Marina Bay City six or seven times the number of clients LUX could generate in exchange for equity, but ultimately delivered only a small fraction of that promise.
More seriously, LUX alleges that Kinnara then targeted existing LUX clients, redirected purchaser funds and used Marina Bay City’s identity to promote further offerings.
Similar questions now surround Campbell’s Saraya Lombok project. LUX alleges that millions of dollars have been collected while no villas have been completed and that purchasers have not been given adequate disclosure concerning land, zoning, permits and realistic construction timeframes.
Those allegations have not been finally determined by a court. Campbell and Kinnara should be given a fair opportunity to answer them with documentary evidence.
A Relentless Publicity Campaign Cannot Replace Accountability
Campbell and his supporters have published a stream of articles attacking LUX Property Group and McIntyre. LUX alleges that this is a deliberate campaign designed to reverse the roles of alleged wrongdoer and victim: collect or control purchaser money, leave another company carrying the contractual liability and then publicly blame that company when villas funded through offshore accounts are not delivered.
“The public-relations strategy is becoming increasingly obvious,” McIntyre said.
“Campbell appears to believe that if he publishes enough attacks, often across paid-placement websites, investors will stop asking where their money went. They will not.”
“The Marina Bay City name does not belong to Campbell simply because he continues using it online. A seafood website filled with promises about a future hospitality precinct does not make Kinnara the developer. Show the authority, show the permits, show the bank records and show the completed villas.”
Regulators Must Act Before More Purchasers Are Exposed
The central issue is no longer competing publicity campaigns. It is consumer protection.
Authorities in Australia and Indonesia should urgently examine:
* the ownership and use of Marina Bay City’s trademarks, domains and digital assets;
* the authority under which purchaser contracts were issued or altered;
* the destination of all buyer payments;
* the relationship between Campbell, Kinnara, Wood and the entities receiving funds;
* representations made concerning Kinnara’s development experience;
* current sales connected with Marina Bay City and Saraya Lombok; and
* whether purchasers are being given accurate information about ownership, permits, construction capacity and delivery dates.
Campbell’s earlier convictions are now a matter of public record. His criminal history can no longer be hidden behind injunctions, reputation-management articles or glossy promotional websites.
The public deserves documents, not promises.
Purchasers deserve bank records, not blame-shifting.
And regulators must act before more people transfer money on the strength of a project identity whose ownership, control and authority remain fiercely disputed.
Editorial and legal note
The Federal Court decision concerned interlocutory injunctions, disclosure, jurisdiction and costs. It did not finally determine the substantive allegations concerning Marina Bay City, Kinnara, GIM Trading or Saraya Lombok. Allegations concerning unauthorised contracts, diverted purchaser payments, disputed digital assets and undelivered properties remain contested unless and until established by a court or competent authority. Campbell and Kinnara should be invited to provide a response before publication.
