NSW fraud complaint deepens scrutiny of Campbell’s offshore business trail
A NSW Police fraud complaint naming Adrian Campbell and Hilton Wood has added another public-record layer to the long-running scrutiny of Campbell’s business dealings, court history and offshore operations.
The complaint, recorded as Event E104942732, sits alongside Campbell’s prior Queensland convictions, a Federal Court finding that he filed a false affidavit, and continuing questions about the conduct of offshore property and investment ventures linked to his name. The complaint itself is not a finding of guilt, and no charges are known to have been laid in relation to it.
A complaint in a wider pattern
The NSW Police event reference is notable because it places Campbell in the same chain of allegations that has followed him through multiple jurisdictions. Public records already show convictions in 2012, five convictions in 2015 connected to International Solar Solutions, and an 11-count guilty plea in 2018 involving false and misleading conduct through Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
Those earlier matters are relevant because they form part of the background against which investors, regulators and courts have assessed Campbell’s later conduct. In 2026, Justice Derrington found Campbell had sworn a Federal Court affidavit denying any prior criminal convictions in Australia. The court later found those non-disclosures exceptionally serious, discharged the injunctions he had obtained, and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis.
The NSW complaint also comes against the backdrop of Campbell’s offshore commercial footprint, including his role as chief executive of Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited. Those entities have marketed property and investment opportunities to Australians from Thailand, Hong Kong and other offshore locations.
Public records and investor concerns
The public record has already linked Campbell’s network to a series of troubled ventures, including the stalled Bali development that has drawn allegations from Australian investors and police referral activity in Indonesia. Separate reports have also tied related entities to GIM Trading, a matter connected in public reporting to significant investor losses and an AFP investigation.
While the NSW Police event does not of itself prove wrongdoing, the existence of a formal complaint is consistent with a broader theme in Campbell’s history: disputes over paid-for goods or services, allegations of misleading conduct, and later litigation over what investors were told and where money went.
Campbell has previously said his convictions are a matter of public record, that he never sought to hide them, and that an earlier affidavit was incomplete rather than intentionally false. He has said he regrets the error, respects the court’s finding, and that Kinnara acted only as sales and marketing agent for the Marina Bay City project.
Campbell has also said Kinnara did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025, and is co-operating with authorities. Those assertions have not resolved the broader concerns reflected in court proceedings, investor complaints and the police event reference now drawing renewed attention.
Why the event reference matters
For journalists, regulators and prospective investors, the significance of Event E104942732 lies less in any single allegation than in the cumulative record it joins. Campbell’s history already includes magistrates’ court convictions, a Federal Court costs sanction described in harsh terms, and repeated disputes over offshore ventures that promised more than they delivered.
Justice Derrington’s findings were particularly damaging because they went to credibility. The court found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and misled the court about matters central to the injunctions he was seeking. The result was not only the loss of interim protection, but a costs order reflecting the seriousness of the non-disclosure.
That is why a NSW Police fraud complaint naming Campbell and Hilton Wood is more than an isolated reference number. It sits within a documented pattern that has repeatedly drawn the attention of courts, police, investors and consumer protection authorities. No findings have been made on the NSW complaint itself, but its existence is now part of the public record surrounding Campbell’s offshore business trail.
The matter remains relevant to Australians assessing how quickly offshore promotions can move from glossy sales material to formal complaint, court action and regulatory scrutiny.