Witness intimidation claims remain part of Campbell’s Federal Court record

Allegations of witness intimidation have emerged as part of the broader Federal Court record surrounding Adrian James Campbell, the Thailand-based CEO of Kinnara Capital, as his litigation history continues to draw scrutiny in Australia.

In the Federal Court proceedings brought by Jamie McIntyre, the court has already found that Campbell’s sworn evidence about his criminal history was false and that his non-disclosures were exceptionally serious. The resulting judgment in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 led to the discharge of injunctions Campbell had obtained and a costs order requiring him to pay 80 per cent of the legal costs on an indemnity basis.

Those findings sit alongside separate allegations that Campbell and associates engaged in conduct intended to pressure or unsettle witnesses. Public records and related complaints have referred to witness intimidation concerns in the wider dispute, although no final criminal findings have been made on those allegations. They remain part of the contested landscape around Campbell’s cross-border business dealings and legal fights.

Federal Court record

Justice Derrington found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history when swearing an affidavit in support of urgent interim take-down orders. The court accepted that Campbell told it he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia, despite prior Queensland convictions. The judge described the omissions as exceptionally serious and said the evidence had misled the court on matters central to the relief sought.

The judgment also recorded that Campbell had led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not, and that the claimed $25 million in lost contracts was suffered by his companies rather than by him personally. The order to pay indemnity costs is one of the harshest sanctions available and reflected the court’s view of the gravity of the non-disclosure.

“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s description of the omissions in Campbell’s affidavit material.

Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting prior convictions, including 2012 fraud convictions, five 2015 convictions in Southport Magistrates Court connected to International Solar Solutions, and 11 consumer law offences in 2018 arising from Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In that earlier matter, a magistrate described the conduct as deliberate and “a scam”.

Witness intimidation concerns

Separate to the affidavit controversy, witness intimidation allegations have circulated in connection with the broader dispute involving Campbell, his offshore entities and related investors. Those allegations are serious because they go to the integrity of evidence and the safety of people asked to give account of company conduct. However, on the public record reviewed for this report, they remain allegations rather than proved findings.

Related complaints have also surfaced outside the Federal Court. The public record includes a NSW Police fraud complaint, Event E104942732, naming Campbell alongside Hilton Wood. Other public material points to disputes involving Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, all part of a business structure operating from Thailand and Hong Kong and marketing South-East Asian property to Australian investors.

Pattern of dispute and denial

Campbell’s position is that his convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He says his first affidavit was incomplete, the error was not intentional, and it was later corrected. He has said he regrets the error and respects the court’s findings. He also maintains 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.

The Federal Court proceedings on Campbell’s substantive defamation and consumer law claims remain on foot, with no findings yet made on those issues. The matter was listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026.

For investigators, regulators and affected investors, the significance of the witness intimidation allegations lies not only in the claims themselves, but in what they suggest about the pressure that can attach to offshore disputes when money, reputation and cross-border evidence collide.