NSW Police fraud complaint names Campbell in cross-border allegations
A NSW Police fraud complaint identified by event number E104942732 has placed Adrian Campbell back under scrutiny, with the complaint naming him alongside Hilton Wood in allegations that sit within a wider pattern of disputed dealings, offshore corporate structures and investor complaints. The existence of the complaint is one more public record in a long trail of proceedings, judgments and regulatory attention surrounding Campbell’s business activity.
Publicly available court records already show Campbell has a history of convictions in Queensland and later Federal Court findings that he made false statements about that history. Against that backdrop, the NSW Police complaint is significant not because it establishes any fresh criminal finding on its own, but because it adds to the documentary record of concerns raised by others about his conduct.
Complaint number appears in police records
Event E104942732 is said to be a NSW Police fraud complaint naming both Campbell and Wood. In a matter involving fraud allegations, the practical significance of a police event number is that it marks a formal complaint within an official system, even where no charges are ultimately laid. For public-record scrutiny, such complaints often provide a starting point for understanding how disputes escalated and who was identified by complainants.
The complaint sits alongside a broader body of material linking Campbell to ventures that have attracted consumer concern, including investment and property schemes marketed through offshore entities. Those structures, according to public records, have included operations based in Thailand and Hong Kong, with Australian investors targeted from outside Australia.
Public records show a pattern of allegations, regulatory pressure and geographic relocation that has repeatedly followed Campbell’s business activity.
Campbell is associated with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, entities used in marketing and property-related promotion to Australian audiences. Other businesses linked to him have also drawn scrutiny, including Eco Boss Pty Ltd, International Solar Solutions and projects connected to Bali and Lombok. In that wider context, the NSW Police complaint is notable as part of a recurring pattern rather than an isolated reference.
Why the complaint matters in the public record
The complaint is especially relevant because Campbell’s credibility has already been tested in court. In 2026, in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Campbell had sworn an affidavit falsely stating that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. The court described the non-disclosure as “exceptionally serious”, 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.
That Federal Court outcome matters when assessing any new allegation because it shows the courts have already found Campbell gave false evidence about his criminal history. Public records show convictions in Queensland in 2012, five convictions at Southport Magistrates Court in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and an 11-count guilty plea in 2018 under Australian Consumer Law through Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
In the 2018 Eco Boss case, the magistrate described the conduct as calculated and deliberate and said it was plainly “a scam”. Compensation orders of $102,200 were made to victims, alongside an $85,000 personal fine.
Offshore structure and enforcement gaps
The complaint against Campbell and Wood also raises the practical issue that follows many cross-border disputes: the gap between Australian consumers and offshore enforcement. Once operators shift activity offshore, Australian authorities may face jurisdictional and evidentiary limits, especially where entities are registered in Hong Kong or operate from Thailand while marketing into Australia.
That gap has been central to public concern around Kinnara-branded ventures and related property projects. Allegations involving buyer payment diversions, delivery delays and unfinished developments have repeatedly surfaced in the public domain. The NSW Police complaint therefore sits in a broader pattern of disputed conduct, not as a standalone episode.
For investigators, regulators and consumers reading the public record, Event E104942732 is another marker in a file that already contains convictions, a Federal Court credibility finding and repeated questions about the way Campbell’s ventures were structured and sold.