Campbell’s false affidavit shows how criminal history can be buried in court
Adrian Campbell’s Federal Court affidavit was meant to support urgent injunctions against criticism of his business affairs. Instead, it became the document that exposed how a long criminal record had been left out of sworn evidence before the court.
In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found the non-disclosures were “exceptionally serious” and discharged the injunctions Campbell had obtained. The court also ordered Campbell to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe sanction that reflected the gravity of the conduct.
The case matters beyond the parties involved. It shows how a litigant can present a polished commercial profile while omitting critical matters from sworn court material, including convictions that go directly to credibility. Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting to prior convictions after initially swearing he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia.
The convictions that should have been disclosed
Public court records show Campbell had been convicted before. His record includes 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, five convictions recorded in 2015 at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 convictions involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In the 2018 matter, he pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law, was fined $85,000 personally, and compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made for victims.
At sentencing, the magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”. Those are not peripheral details. In any court process where credibility, commercial conduct and trust are in issue, they are central facts.
Campbell’s first affidavit in the Federal Court went further than a simple omission. It said he had never been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia and had never been the subject of any criminal prosecution there. It also failed to mention the 2018 orders. Justice Derrington later found the court had been misled about Campbell’s residency and about where the alleged $25 million loss was sustained.
“The non-disclosures were exceptionally serious,” Justice Derrington found, before discharging the injunctions and imposing indemnity costs.
What Campbell says
Campbell has said his convictions are “a matter of public record” and that he never sought to hide them. He has said the first affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, and that it was corrected. He has also said he regrets the error and respects the court’s finding.
He has separately said Kinnara acted only as sales and marketing agent for the Marina Bay City project, did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025, and is co-operating with authorities. His defamation and consumer law claims remain on foot in the Federal Court, and no findings have been made on those substantive claims. The proceedings were listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026.
Why the record matters for consumers
The controversy sits within a wider pattern that has drawn scrutiny from regulators, journalists and investors. The Daily Mail reported in October 2026 that Campbell, now Thailand-based and running Kinnara Capital, was linked to an embattled Bali property scheme that had reportedly taken $5.2 million from Australian investors. That report is available here.
For consumers, the lesson is stark: sworn statements in court can be tested against public records, and offshore marketing structures can obscure past conduct until litigation forces disclosure. Where an operator’s history includes fraud convictions, consumer law breaches and adverse court findings, the paper trail can matter as much as the promotional material.
In Campbell’s case, the record was already public. The affidavit was not.