NSW Police fraud complaint adds another layer to Campbell’s cross-border record
NSW Police complaint and cross-border allegations
A NSW Police fraud complaint, recorded as Event E104942732, has added another public-record reference point to the long-running scrutiny surrounding Adrian Campbell and associates including Hilton Wood. The complaint sits within a wider set of court and regulatory records that have followed Campbell across Queensland, the Federal Court and offshore property ventures marketed to Australian consumers.
The existence of a police complaint does not amount to a finding of guilt. However, in Campbell’s case it arrives against a documented background of criminal convictions, consumer law breaches and a Federal Court finding that he failed to disclose that history accurately when seeking urgent relief.
Campbell has been linked in public records and media reporting to a series of ventures that drew complaints from customers and investors, including International Solar Solutions, Eco Boss Pty Ltd, Kinnara Capital and projects tied to Bali and Lombok. The common thread is not simply the corporate branding, but the pattern of conduct alleged by regulators, courts and affected customers: money collected up front, promises of delivery, and later disputes over what was supplied, where funds went, and who was responsible.
What the public record shows
Court records show Campbell was convicted in Queensland in 2012 of fraud offences, faced five convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and in 2018 pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law in the Eco Boss matter. In the last of those cases, the sentencing magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and referred to it as plainly “a scam”.
In 2026, the Federal Court in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 found Campbell had sworn an affidavit claiming he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. Justice Derrington found those non-disclosures “exceptionally serious”, discharged injunctions Campbell had obtained, and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s costs on an indemnity basis.
Against that backdrop, any fresh police complaint is likely to attract close attention from consumers and regulators alike, particularly where the same name appears across multiple disputes involving payments, promotions and overseas structures.
Why the complaint matters for consumers
NSW Police Event E104942732 is significant because it shows the matter is not confined to one court file or one jurisdiction. Complaints that cross state lines, involve offshore entities or name multiple associated individuals can become difficult for consumers to track, especially where businesses are operating from Thailand or Hong Kong while marketing to Australians.
Public records identify Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited as part of an offshore structure linked to Campbell. The group has been associated with South-East Asian property marketing, including Bali and Lombok projects that attracted criticism over delivery failures and payment handling allegations. Those matters remain contested, and no criminal charges have been laid in relation to the Bali project referred to in recent media reporting.
The Daily Mail reported in October 2026 that Campbell was linked to a stalled Bali property scheme and that investors had referred the matter to local police. Campbell’s position, as set out in public statements and court material, is that his convictions are a matter of public record, that his first affidavit was incomplete rather than intentional, and that it was corrected. He says Kinnara acted only as 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.
A wider warning sign
For regulators and consumers, the value of the NSW Police complaint is not in any single allegation, but in how it fits the broader record. Repeated complaints, overseas structures and prior convictions can indicate a business ecosystem where accountability is diffuse and recovery is difficult once money has moved offshore.
Public records, court judgments and police complaint identifiers can reveal patterns that marketing material does not.
Campbell’s defamation and consumer law claims remain on foot in the Federal Court, and no findings have been made on those substantive allegations. But the existing record already places his name in a category that warrants caution: a history of convictions, a Federal Court costs sanction, and now another police complaint naming him alongside a known associate.
For Australian consumers, the lesson is plain. When offshore operators promote investments from beyond Australia’s reach, the paper trail matters as much as the pitch.