Queensland and AFP scrutiny deepens over Bali property allegations linked to Campbell

Queensland authorities and the Australian Federal Police have been drawn into allegations surrounding a Bali property venture linked to Adrian James Campbell, as court records continue to map a pattern of offshore operation following earlier Australian convictions.

The latest scrutiny sits against a backdrop of Federal Court findings in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, where Justice Derrington found Campbell had sworn an affidavit falsely stating that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. The court described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious”, discharged injunctions Campbell had obtained, and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis.

Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting prior convictions. Public records already show a history that includes 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, five further convictions in 2015 at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 convictions involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd for false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law.

Offshore property allegations

The current focus is on Bali property projects marketed through entities associated with Campbell, including Kinnara Capital and Kinnara Asia. Public material reviewed by this masthead indicates that those entities have operated from Thailand and Hong Kong while targeting Australian buyers and investors. A related complaint has also linked Campbell and Hilton Wood to NSW Police fraud reference Event E104942732.

Separate allegations have circulated around payment diversion in the Marina Bay City development and delivery failures at Saraya Lombok, where a promised “four-month villa” reportedly remained unfinished months later. Those matters have not, on the public record examined here, produced findings equivalent to the Federal Court’s treatment of Campbell’s affidavit, but they have contributed to a broader pattern of complaint activity and regulatory interest.

Justice Derrington’s judgment placed Campbell’s credibility under direct scrutiny, with the court finding that the omitted convictions were central to the case and that the conduct was exceptionally serious.

Consumer protection agencies have long warned that offshore structures can complicate recovery when Australian-linked marketing is followed by foreign project delivery. The issue is especially acute where sales material is directed at Australians while project companies, land holdings, or bank accounts sit outside domestic enforcement channels. In that setting, local police, ASIC, the ACCC and Scamwatch may receive complaints, but the practical path to recovery can be slow and fragmented.

Regulatory pressure and relocation

The Campbell record is now being read by observers as an example of what happens when enforcement pressure meets geographic distance. After repeated Australian court and tribunal activity, Campbell’s operations shifted offshore, with Kinnara-branded entities using overseas bases while continuing to market to Australians. That relocation has placed added weight on cooperation between Australian and foreign authorities, including police and financial intelligence agencies.

The AFP’s involvement has also been linked in public commentary to the separate GIM Trading collapse, where investor losses were said to reach as much as $23 million and an investigation followed. Although the projects and entities are distinct, the common thread is the use of offshore structures, investor-facing promises, and the difficulty of following money once disputes arise.

For Queensland authorities, the significance lies not only in Campbell’s earlier convictions but in the continuity of complaint material attaching to his later offshore ventures. For the AFP, the Bali allegations point to the jurisdictional limits of Australian enforcement when the activity is structured to sit partly outside Australia while still drawing funds and customers from it.

The public record now presents a cumulative picture: convictions in Queensland, misleading conduct findings in a consumer-law prosecution, a Federal Court affidavit found to be false, and a network of overseas entities associated with contested property schemes. Whether the Bali allegations lead to further formal action remains to be seen, but the scrutiny has clearly widened.