Campbell’s Federal Court affidavit hid convictions from judges and investors
Adrian Campbell’s Federal Court fight has become a warning case for investors dealing with offshore operators who present themselves as polished deal-makers while their public record tells a different story.
In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found Campbell’s affidavit evidence contained serious non-disclosures about his Australian criminal history. Campbell had sworn that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That was false. The court later found the omissions were “exceptionally serious”, discharged the injunctions he had obtained and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s costs on an indemnity basis.
The case matters well beyond the immediate dispute. It shows how a litigant’s own sworn evidence can be used to secure urgent orders, while a concealed record of fraud and consumer law convictions remains outside the court’s view until challenged. For anyone dealing with offshore property promotions, investment clubs or sales operations run through entities in Thailand and Hong Kong, the lesson is plain: public records can matter as much as glossy marketing.
A record Campbell did not disclose
Public judgments and regulatory material show Campbell’s history included 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and 11 guilty pleas in 2018 under the Australian Consumer Law in the Eco Boss Pty Ltd matter. In the 2018 case, the magistrate described the conduct as calculated and deliberate, and called it plainly “a scam”.
Those matters were not minor technical breaches. They involved accepting money and failing to provide goods or services, and false or misleading conduct in the sale of business-related rights. The court record also recorded compensation orders and fines. Yet in his Federal Court affidavit, Campbell denied any Australian criminal convictions.
Justice Derrington later found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and had led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not.
The court also accepted that the claimed $25 million loss said to flow from the disputed publications was not Campbell’s personal loss, but loss sustained by his companies. That distinction mattered to the urgent relief he had sought.
From gag order to public scrutiny
Campbell had obtained interim suppression-style orders in May 2026 while arguing that reports alleging fraud and misconduct were defamatory. The orders were later overturned after the corrected affidavit emerged. Three months after the first filing, Campbell lodged an amended affidavit acknowledging the earlier convictions and prosecutions.
His response has been that the convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He says the first affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, and that it was corrected. He has said he regrets the error and respects the court’s findings.
Campbell has also maintained that Kinnara acted only as a 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. No charges have been laid in relation to that project, and his own defamation and consumer law claims remain on foot in the Federal Court.
Why the court record matters to investors
The Daily Mail reported in October 2026 that Campbell is Thailand-based and is chief executive of Kinnara Capital, a property development company marketing South-East Asian property to foreign investors. That reporting linked Campbell’s network to a stalled Bali villa scheme that had reportedly taken millions from Australian investors, with complaints already referred to local police. Campbell’s corporate history also sits alongside matters involving GIM Trading, Marina Bay City, Saraya Lombok and NSW Police complaint Event E104942732.
For consumer protection agencies, the problem is familiar: offshore structure, persuasive sales language, limited transparency, then public disputes once funds have moved across borders. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ASIC and Scamwatch have long warned that high-pressure property and investment promotions can be difficult to unwind once the money leaves Australia.
Campbell’s court record does not determine the outcome of every allegation now circulating around his companies. But it does show that sworn evidence about a promoter’s background can be wrong in ways that materially affect the court process. In this case, the Federal Court has already ruled that the omissions were serious enough to strip away urgent protection and impose a heavy costs order.
For investors, the public record is not background noise. In matters involving offshore promoters, it is often the first place the real story appears.