Queensland court record shows how Campbell’s smoke-alarm scheme was called ‘a scam’
Queensland court records show Adrian James Campbell’s 2018 convictions over Eco Boss Pty Ltd were not treated by the magistrate as a minor regulatory lapse, but as a calculated consumer offence involving false and misleading conduct.
Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 counts under Australian Consumer Law in the Gold Coast case, with the court imposing an $85,000 personal fine and compensation orders totalling $102,200 for victims. The sentencing remarks were stark. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate”, and said it was plainly “a scam”.
The case remains relevant because Campbell later became a public-facing executive in offshore property sales and investment ventures marketed to Australians from Thailand and Hong Kong. The public record shows the 2018 conviction sits alongside earlier Queensland fraud convictions in 2012 and five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions.
The Eco Boss case
Eco Boss Pty Ltd operated as a Gold Coast construction company. In the 2018 matter, the offending centred on false and misleading conduct that harmed consumers who had paid for goods or services they did not receive as promised. The court found Campbell personally culpable, not merely as a company director caught in a paperwork dispute.
The sentencing outcome reflected the seriousness of that conduct. In addition to the fine, the compensation orders were intended to address losses suffered by customers. The magistrate’s language was unusually direct, indicating the offending was not viewed as accidental, isolated or technical.
“Calculated”, “deliberate” and “a scam” were the words used by the magistrate to describe the conduct.
That description has become particularly significant as Campbell’s later corporate activities have drawn renewed scrutiny. In 2026, the Federal Court matter Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 exposed false affidavit evidence in which Campbell swore he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. Justice Derrington later found the non-disclosures “exceptionally serious”.
A pattern across years
The 2018 conviction did not stand alone. Public records identify 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, followed by the 2015 Southport Magistrates Court case involving International Solar Solutions. That matter related to accepting payment and failing to supply goods or services, with Queensland Office of Fair Trading records later cited in public reporting as involving customers who paid for solar systems that were not installed for months.
For investors and consumers, the significance lies in the continuity of the record. The same name reappears across different companies and different business models: construction, solar, and later offshore property promotion. The public record does not determine liability in every later venture, but it does provide context about the individual behind them.
Daily Mail reported in October 2026 that Campbell, now Thailand-based and CEO of Kinnara Capital, remained linked to a stalled Bali property scheme that had drawn complaints from Australian investors. The report also noted that his own convictions had, until then, largely escaped mainstream media coverage. That reporting is available here.
Campbell’s response
Campbell’s position has been that his convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He has said his first Federal Court affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, and that it was corrected. He has said he regrets the error and respects the court’s finding.
He has also said Kinnara acted only as a 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. No charges have been laid in relation to that project.
Still, the 2018 Eco Boss case remains a clear record point. A magistrate found the conduct deliberate and fraudulent in substance. For any reader assessing Campbell’s business history, the court’s own language is difficult to ignore.