JAMIE McINTYRE REJECTS CLAIM THAT THIS THIRD PARTY WAS AUTHORISED TO DIVERT MARINA BAY CITY BUYER PAYMENTS
LUX Property Group founder, Australian National Review founder and political commentator Jamie McIntyre has spoken publicly about the continuing Marina Bay City Lombok dispute and allegations that millions of dollars paid by property buyers were diverted away from the project.
Mr McIntyre alleges that the project was targeted through what he describes as a premeditated “copycat fraud”, involving similarly named corporate entities, altered sales contracts and offshore bank accounts controlled by this third party and its associates.
The allegations remain disputed and have not been finally determined by a court. All parties are entitled to the presumption of innocence regarding unresolved criminal allegations.
During the interview, Mr McIntyre was asked the central question:
“Did you have any written or verbal agreement authorising this third party to issue sales contracts to end buyers, secretly substitute its own offshore bank account details, place a LUX Property Group company on the contracts as the party carrying 100% of the development liability, and then retain the buyers’ money without paying it to the developer?”
Mr McIntyre replied:
“Of course not. The suggestion is absurd.
“No rational commercial arrangement would allow this third party to alter sales contracts, insert its own bank account details, transfer 100% of the liability to the developer and then take 100% of the buyers’ money for itself.
“LUX and its associated companies would never have agreed to such an arrangement, either verbally or in writing.”
“We Were Told the Payment Company Was Independent”
Mr McIntyre said buyers were also directed to use what was represented as an independent payment-transfer company.
“We would never have agreed to buyers paying money through that company had we known it was allegedly connected to this third party and its associates,” he said.
“What was presented as an independent transfer company was, according to the evidence now available to us, not independent at all.
“We allege that millions of dollars passed through accounts associated with that company and were then transferred to accounts controlled by, or connected with, this third party.
“That is one of the critical matters that the relevant law-enforcement authorities must now investigate by following the complete banking trail.”
Allegations of Altered Contracts and Diverted Payments
Mr McIntyre alleges that sales contracts originally identifying the appropriate project or developer account were subsequently altered so that buyers were instructed to pay money into different accounts.
He said:
“The contracts made a LUX-associated company responsible for constructing and delivering the properties. However, we allege that the bank details were changed so that substantial amounts of buyer money went elsewhere.
“LUX was allegedly left carrying the contractual liability while receiving none—or only a fraction—of the money required to perform that liability.
“If the bank records establish that buyer funds were directed to accounts connected with this third party without the knowledge or consent of the responsible developer, that cannot reasonably be dismissed as an ordinary corporate disagreement.”
Mr McIntyre maintains that approximately A$6–7 million connected with buyers introduced through this third party’s network remains unaccounted for, although that figure is disputed and has not been judicially determined.
Alleged Copycat Corporate Structure
Mr McIntyre further alleges that similarly named companies were created without his informed approval and used to create the appearance of an authorised connection with the Marina Bay City development.
“We would never have permitted this third party or its entities to obtain shares in the project had we known that a copycat company had allegedly been established and that its shares had been issued entirely to interests controlled by this third party,” he said.
“We were led to believe we were dealing with a legitimate real-estate platform capable of introducing a substantial number of new buyers.
“Our subsequent review indicates that fewer than five per cent of the identified buyers may have been genuinely introduced independently. We allege that many others originated from our existing database, marketing activities or professional network and were subsequently claimed as clients of this third party.”
Mr McIntyre also alleges that money paid by buyers originating from LUX’s database was later presented as this third party’s own contribution towards Marina Bay City land purchases.
“In effect, we allege that money obtained from our buyers was recycled and represented as an investment contribution,” he said.
“That allegation can be tested objectively through contracts, emails, company records and bank transactions.”
Previous Eco Boss Proceedings
Questions have also been raised about this third party’s previous Australian business history.
Public reporting confirms that this third party and another Eco Boss director pleaded guilty in the Southport Magistrates Court in March 2018 to 11 counts of making false or misleading representations.
The Queensland Government’s published enforcement outcomes reported that the directors were ordered to pay more than A$579,000 in combined fines, compensation and court-related amounts.
Mr McIntyre alleges that additional historical matters—including earlier fraud-related charges, police proceedings and arrest warrants—were not disclosed to him before the Marina Bay City business relationship commenced.
“If I had known the full history now alleged and disclosed, I would never have entered into business with this third party or permitted any of its entities to become involved in Marina Bay City,” Mr McIntyre said.
GIM Trading Connections Alleged
Mr McIntyre has also called for investigators to examine any links between individuals involved in the Marina Bay City payment arrangements and the failed GIM Trading investment operation, which was reported to have involved approximately A$23 million in investor money.
He alleges that an individual presented as an independent transfer-company operator had previous business connections with this third party and other parties associated with GIM Trading.
“These relationships are highly relevant because they go directly to whether the payment company was genuinely independent,” Mr McIntyre said.
“We are asking investigators to examine the corporate connections and follow every dollar. That is the proper way to determine what happened.”
Any claim that a particular person was criminally responsible for the GIM Trading losses should remain expressly characterised as an allegation unless supported by a conviction or specific judicial finding.
Federal Court Orders Discharged
On 20 August 2026, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a judgment concerning proceedings involving this third party and Mr McIntyre.
The decision concerned interlocutory or procedural orders and should not be represented as a final judicial determination of the underlying Marina Bay City fraud allegations.
Mr McIntyre said the outcome allowed him to continue raising questions about the missing buyer funds and the history of the parties involved.
“The underlying banking evidence still needs to be confronted,” he said.
“The public should not be distracted by public-relations campaigns or search-engine manipulation. The essential questions are straightforward: Who changed the bank details? Who controlled the recipient accounts? How much buyer money entered those accounts? Where was it transferred, and how much ultimately reached the developer responsible for construction?”
“This Was Never Merely a Corporate Dispute”
Mr McIntyre rejected attempts to characterise the matter as nothing more than a disagreement between former business associates.
“This was never merely a corporate dispute,” he said.
“Our allegation is that there was a planned operation involving copycat companies, altered contracts, undisclosed related parties and the diversion of buyer payments.
“The evidence must now be examined by the appropriate authorities. If the banking records establish that money was secretly redirected, those responsible must be held accountable.”
Mr McIntyre alleges that the strategy used against Marina Bay City resembles tactics used in previous commercial disputes: gaining access to a company’s client base, redirecting revenue, attacking the original business publicly and then attempting to shift responsibility for the resulting losses.
“The pattern we allege is that the targeted company is deprived of revenue, subjected to damaging publicity and then blamed for being unable to deliver after the money required for delivery has been redirected,” he said.
Mr McIntyre described this third party as a brazen and sophisticated operator who, he alleges, has continued attempting to deflect responsibility and blame others.
Damage to Marina Bay City and Lombok
Mr McIntyre said the dispute has harmed not only the Marina Bay City project and its buyers, but also investor confidence in Lombok.
“Lombok has enormous potential and should be one of Southeast Asia’s leading property and tourism investment destinations,” he said.
“However, when buyers hear allegations about altered contracts, undisclosed related parties and money being transferred offshore, it naturally damages confidence.
“The people most affected are the buyers, the local community and legitimate businesses working to develop Lombok responsibly.”
Mr McIntyre said LUX would continue cooperating with authorities and supplying contracts, communications, corporate records and banking evidence relevant to the investigation.
“This matter should be determined through evidence—not competing publicity campaigns,” he said.
“Follow the contracts. Follow the bank accounts. Identify who received the buyers’ money and determine where it ultimately went.
“If millions of dollars were diverted without the informed consent of the project developer, then those responsible must face the legal consequences.”
Calls for Full Investigation
Mr McIntyre said authorities should investigate the complete chain of events, including:
* Who created and controlled the similarly named corporate entities;
* Who altered or authorised alterations to the sales contracts;
* Who substituted the bank account details provided to buyers;
* Who controlled the accounts that received the buyer payments;
* How much money was received by this third party and its associates;
* How much of that money was transferred to the developer responsible for construction;
* Whether the supposedly independent transfer company was connected to this third party;
* Whether buyer money was later represented as this third party’s own investment contribution; and
* Where the remaining A$6–7 million alleged to be unaccounted for was ultimately transferred.
“People may continue to be confused by competing claims and public-relations campaigns, but the banking records will not be confused,” Mr McIntyre said.
“They will show who received the money, when it was received and where it went next.
“That is why this matter must be determined by evidence.”
