Federal Court records show why Campbell’s Bali project drew investor alarm
Federal Court records have added another layer of scrutiny to Adrian Campbell’s offshore property operation, after a stalled Bali villa development linked to his company structure left Australian investors demanding answers and local police referrals.
The project, promoted under the Kinnara umbrella and initially marketed as Marina Bay Lombok, was described to buyers as a luxury development in Bali’s south-west. Instead, investors have alleged that progress was opaque, delivery stalled, and parts of the site were later torn down after reportedly being built in the wrong location. According to the Daily Mail reported in October 2026, the scheme had drawn about $5.2 million from Australian investors, with some now saying they referred the matter to Indonesian police. No charges have been laid in relation to the project.
The Bali complaints now sit alongside a separate and highly damaging Federal Court record. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Campbell had sworn a false affidavit in support of urgent interim take-down orders. The affidavit claimed he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia, despite publicly available records showing convictions in 2012, 2015 and 2018. The court later found those non-disclosures to be “exceptionally serious”.
What the court found
Justice Derrington discharged the injunctions Campbell had obtained and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs outcomes available. The court also found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history, misled the court about his residency, and overstated the personal nature of his claimed losses. The judgment recorded that the $25 million in alleged lost contracts was in fact suffered by his companies rather than by Campbell personally.
Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting to the prior convictions. His admitted history includes 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 guilty pleas to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law in the Eco Boss matter. In the 2018 case, he was fined personally and compensation orders were made for victims after the magistrate described the conduct as calculated, deliberate and “a scam”.
“The non-disclosures were exceptionally serious,” Justice Derrington found.
The Federal Court proceedings remain relevant because Campbell’s own defamation and consumer law claims are still on foot, with the matter listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026. No findings have yet been made on those substantive claims.
Investor allegations and Campbell’s response
Campbell’s position is that his convictions are a matter of public record and were never deliberately concealed. 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 finding.
On the Bali project, Campbell says Kinnara acted only as a sales and marketing agent for the Marina Bay City development, did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025 and is co-operating with authorities. Those assertions remain contested by investors who have complained that they were left in the dark about construction progress and about where money paid for the project ultimately went.
The wider structure is also under examination. Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited are based offshore, with links to Thailand and Hong Kong while marketing property opportunities to Australians. That model has attracted concern because it places distance between the seller, the project and the investor when disputes emerge.
For regulators and investigators, the central issue remains the same: whether the promises made to Australian buyers matched the reality on the ground. For the investors in the stalled Bali scheme, the question is now less about marketing and more about where the money went, why the site faltered, and what redress, if any, may still be available.
As the Federal Court record shows, Campbell’s business history is already well documented in public judgments. The Bali dispute suggests those records are likely to remain relevant as scrutiny of his offshore dealings continues.