Did Kinnara Overstate Its Agent Network to Defraud Marina Bay City, a Multimillion-Dollar Project in Lombok, Indonesia?
According to information supplied to Newsdesk, Kinnara allegedly overstated its international sales network to secure a 50% interest in Marina Bay City. The supplied account also alleges that clients and millions of dollars in buyer payments were subsequently diverted away from the developer.
Promises of access to a powerful international property sales network sit at the centre of allegations concerning Kinnara and its founder, Adrian Campbell, over the Marina Bay City development in Lombok, Indonesia.
According to information supplied to Newsdesk, Kinnara represented that its agent network could generate six to seven times as many buyers as LUX Property Group, the project’s developer, could bring to the venture itself. That promised sales capacity allegedly provided the justification for Kinnara receiving a 50% interest.
The supplied account claims that actual performance fell dramatically short: fewer than 5% of the project’s clients were independently introduced by Kinnara.
If substantiated, those figures would expose a substantial gap between the sales capability presented during negotiations and the buyers actually delivered.
Questions over the agent network
Kinnara’s public marketing continues to emphasise its scale. Its development website describes the wider group as one of Asia’s largest and fastest-growing real estate platforms and advertises more than 15,000 registered agents globally. Those are the company’s own representations, rather than independently verified measures of active agents or completed sales. (kinnara.capital)
The information supplied to Newsdesk alleges that the network presented during the Marina Bay City negotiations was a façade: an appearance of substantial distribution capacity that did not translate into the promised customers.
The allegations extend beyond disappointing sales performance. Kinnara is accused of appropriating clients originally generated by the developer and treating those buyers as its own.
Allegations of altered contracts and diverted payments
According to the supplied account, sales contracts were issued without the developer’s authority, contractual terms were altered, and payment instructions were changed to direct buyers to offshore accounts controlled by Kinnara or associated entities.
Millions of dollars intended for the project were allegedly diverted through those arrangements.
These claims have not been independently established in this article. Verification requires comparison of authorised contracts, versions issued to purchasers, payment instructions, bank records and the amounts ultimately received by the developer.
The central question is whether buyers’ money reached the entity responsible for delivering the property they purchased.
Federal Court judgment documents previous convictions
The dispute has also brought Campbell’s criminal history into public view.
In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, the Federal Court recorded that Campbell initially denied having criminal convictions. A subsequent affidavit acknowledged:
- fraud convictions in 2012;
- five Australian Consumer Law convictions in 2015; and
- guilty pleas to eleven false or misleading representation charges in 2018, for which convictions were recorded.
Justice Derrington found significant non-disclosures concerning Campbell’s criminal history, residence and claimed losses. The Court discharged the interim injunctions and ordered Campbell to pay 80% of McIntyre’s costs associated with the interlocutory application on an indemnity basis. (judgments.fedcourt.gov.au)
That ruling did not establish that Kinnara falsified its agent numbers, diverted Marina Bay City payments or committed fraud in the development. The judgment also records Campbell’s denial of the underlying fraud and misappropriation allegations. (judgments.fedcourt.gov.au)
The unresolved questions
The unresolved commercial questions remain direct:
- What sales network was promised?
- How many buyers did it actually produce?
- Who authorised the contracts?
- Where did purchasers’ money go?