The most recent Federal Court proceeding, Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, placed that history under fresh scrutiny. In affidavit evidence, Campbell swore he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Justice Derrington later described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious” and discharged injunctions Campbell had obtained. The court also ordered Campbell to pay 80% of legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe costs outcome reserved for serious cases.

Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit acknowledging prior convictions. Those convictions were not obscure or technical. They were recorded in Queensland over a period spanning more than a decade, including fraud convictions in 2012, Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 consumer law offences through Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In the Eco Boss matter, Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law. He was fined personally and compensation orders were made in favour of victims. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”.

Those records matter because they provide context for the later offshore structure. Campbell is associated with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, with operations linked to Thailand and Hong Kong and marketing directed at Australians. Public descriptions of the structure place the operating centre outside Australia, even as the customer base remains Australian. That arrangement is a familiar feature of disputes involving offshore investment and property ventures: the sales reach remains local, while the enforcement and asset recovery trail becomes harder to follow.

In Campbell’s case, the movement offshore did not occur in a vacuum. It followed repeated regulatory and criminal findings in Australia. The pattern is visible in the public record: an Australian entity is used, consumer complaints emerge, prosecution follows, and then the business footprint shifts beyond Australian jurisdiction. That change can make civil recovery and regulatory coordination more difficult, particularly where company registration, assets and decision-making are spread across multiple countries.

The significance of the Federal Court findings

Justice Derrington’s judgment is significant not simply because it exposed false affidavit evidence, but because it demonstrated how earlier conviction history can bear directly on credibility in later proceedings. The court’s response was unusually severe. The discharge of injunctions removed the protection Campbell had sought, while the indemnity costs order reflected the court’s view of the seriousness of the conduct before it.

“Exceptionally serious,” Justice Derrington found of the non-disclosures in the Federal Court affidavit.

For observers of offshore consumer and property schemes, the case illustrates how legal pressure in Australia can coincide with geographic repositioning. Campbell’s current base in Thailand, alongside company links to Hong Kong, sits against the backdrop of convictions made in Australian courts and findings made in an Australian federal proceeding.

Other entities connected to Campbell have also drawn scrutiny in public records, including projects and complaints linked to investor losses, alleged payment diversions and police matters. The broader picture is not of isolated incidents, but of a prolonged pattern in which enforcement action is followed by a shift in operational geography.

Australian investors examining offshore entities connected to Campbell face a difficult evidentiary landscape. Court judgments, tribunal records and regulatory decisions remain the most reliable sources for understanding that landscape. In this instance, those records show a businessman who moved increasingly out of reach only after Australian courts and regulators had already intervened.

Those tactics are central to the concerns surrounding offshore-linked ventures associated with Adrian James Campbell, whose corporate footprint has been tied to Thailand and Hong Kong through Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited. Public records also show Campbell has a history of convictions in Queensland, including fraud offences and consumer law breaches. In 2026, the Federal Court in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 found his non-disclosures about criminal convictions were exceptionally serious and discharged injunctions he had obtained.

Pressure, scarcity and the promise of exclusivity

Consumer watchdogs regularly warn that high-pressure sales scripts are common in offshore schemes. The pitch often begins with a credible story: high-end developments, premium locations and access to a supposedly exclusive opportunity unavailable through mainstream channels. In practice, the sales process can be driven by urgency. Buyers are told that prices will rise overnight, that the last remaining units are about to disappear, or that a small deposit is needed to secure a place in a fast-moving market.

That style of marketing is particularly concerning when it is paired with offshore structures. Publicly available material shows Kinnara-related entities operating across multiple jurisdictions while marketing to Australian investors. Such arrangements can make it harder to identify who controls the money, where the assets are held, and which regulator, if any, can readily intervene if something goes wrong.

In one reported example, a Saraya Lombok development promoted by Kinnara left a promised “four-month villa” as an empty shell after six months. In another, allegations concerning Marina Bay City in Bali involved buyer payment diversions. Neither claim is resolved by sales material alone; both highlight the gap that can exist between presentation and delivery in offshore property promotions.

“Calculated” and “deliberate” conduct was the language used by a magistrate in the Eco Boss Pty Ltd case, where Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law and was personally fined $85,000.

What the records show about concealment

One recurring theme in public court material is concealment. In the Federal Court proceedings, Campbell swore an affidavit claiming he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Justice Derrington described the non-disclosures as exceptionally serious, a finding that matters beyond one case because it speaks to credibility in any investor-facing enterprise.

The court’s response was severe. The injunctions Campbell had obtained were discharged and he was ordered to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis, a sanction reserved for the most serious litigation conduct. Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting the earlier convictions.

For prospective investors, the pattern is significant. Sales environments that rely on pressure often also rely on selective disclosure. Corporate records may be spread across several jurisdictions. Key people may operate through layered entities. Complaints may be met with delay, deflection or new assurances. In the public record, these features have appeared alongside entities associated with Campbell, including Kinnara-linked operations and older ventures such as International Solar Solutions and Eco Boss Pty Ltd.

Recognising the warning signs in public records

ACCC, ASIC and Scamwatch materials repeatedly point to the same markers: promises of unusually strong returns, insistence on quick decisions, reluctance to provide independent documents, and difficulty confirming the legal identity of the promoter. Offshore schemes can add further complications, including foreign registration, unfamiliar dispute processes and marketing aimed at Australians from outside the country.

Public records also show that pressure can escalate when scrutiny increases. Campbell’s history includes convictions in 2012, 2015 and 2018, followed by Federal Court findings in 2026. That sequence illustrates a broader issue in the offshore investment sector: some operators do not disappear after regulatory attention; they relocate, rebrand and continue selling through new entities and jurisdictions.

For Australian consumers, the key lesson from the record is not simply that offshore schemes can fail. It is that the sales tactics themselves often contain the warning. Urgency, opacity and inflated claims are not peripheral features; they are frequently the mechanism by which confidence is manufactured before problems emerge.

That gap is central to the record surrounding Adrian James Campbell, who has operated through offshore-linked entities including Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited. Court materials indicate those businesses have been directed from Thailand and Hong Kong while promoting opportunities to Australian customers. The structure places the commercial activity outside Australia even when the target audience remains local.

The regulatory risk is not theoretical. Campbell’s history includes Queensland fraud convictions in 2012, Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 connected with International Solar Solutions, and 2018 guilty pleas by Eco Boss Pty Ltd to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law. In that earlier matter, the magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”.

Offshore marketing, local harm

The problem for regulators is that offshore operators can keep selling even after concerns are raised in Australia. Promotional websites, social media campaigns, overseas company registrations and cross-border payment flows can all be deployed to create distance between the people behind a scheme and the consumers it reaches.

Public records relating to Kinnara-linked activity show that distance matters. Projects promoted to Australian buyers, including Marina Bay City and Saraya Lombok, have been associated with alleged delivery failures and diverted payments. In one instance, a promised “four-month villa” was reportedly still an empty shell after six months. While each matter must be assessed on its own facts, the wider pattern is the same: offshore structure, Australian marketing, and significant practical difficulty when complaints arise.

“The central enforcement challenge is that the sales pitch may be aimed at Australians, while the operating company sits in another jurisdiction, beyond immediate local reach.”

The federal courts have also reflected the seriousness of that risk. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found Campbell’s non-disclosures in a Federal Court affidavit to be “exceptionally serious”. Campbell had sworn that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia, which the court found to be false. The injunctions he had obtained were discharged, and he was ordered to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs sanctions available.

He later filed a corrected affidavit admitting the earlier convictions. The decision underscores a broader point for the consumer protection debate: when an operator’s credibility is already in issue, an offshore structure can make it harder for regulators and courts to act quickly enough to protect new victims.

Why the gap persists

Australian agencies such as ASIC, the ACCC and Scamwatch regularly warn that scams and high-risk offers increasingly use international structures, cryptocurrency rails, foreign incorporation and remote call centres. Those warnings are not limited to a single person or company. They reflect a structural problem in modern cross-border marketing.

In practice, a scheme can appear Australian enough to win trust, yet foreign enough to frustrate enforcement. Business names, websites and sales teams may be designed for Australian consumers, while the legal entity behind them is registered elsewhere and assets are moved offshore. If disputes emerge, victims may face foreign courts, offshore insolvency, or claims that a local regulator lacks immediate reach.

The Campbell record is a case study in that model. Court judgments, tribunal records and regulatory decisions already provide a paper trail of prior convictions, misleading conduct findings and adverse Federal Court treatment. For Australian consumers, the lesson is not confined to one individual. It is that offshore marketing can create the appearance of local accountability without the substance of it.

That is the regulatory gap: Australians are targeted at home, while enforcement must chase the conduct across borders. By then, the money, the company or the promoter may already have moved on.

The latest allegations sit against a long paper trail. Campbell has prior Queensland fraud convictions recorded in 2012, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and an 2018 Gold Coast consumer law case in which he pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct through Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In that matter, he was fined $85,000 personally and ordered to pay compensation totalling $102,200 to victims.

Those matters now form the background to a broader examination of Campbell’s offshore business dealings, including property projects marketed through Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited. Public material indicates those entities were operating from Thailand and Hong Kong while targeting Australian investors with property and investment offerings across south-east Asia, including Bali and Lombok.

Police and federal agencies drawn in

According to information contained in public complaint material, an NSW Police fraud complaint — Event E104942732 — named Campbell alongside Hilton Wood. Separately, the Australian Federal Police has previously been linked in public reporting to investigations involving GIM Trading, a venture associated with investor losses alleged to total up to $23 million. The Bali-related matter is now being viewed in that wider context of offshore property promotions, contested payment flows and investor disputes.

The concern for investigators is not limited to one development. Public records and complaints point to a pattern in which promised returns, ownership structures and delivery timeframes have allegedly failed to align with what was sold to buyers. In one example, Kinnara’s promoted “four-month villa” at Saraya Lombok was later described in public material as remaining an empty shell after six months.

Another project, Marina Bay City in Bali, has been linked in public allegations to buyer payment diversions. These assertions are matters of record in complaint and litigation material and have become part of a growing file of cross-border consumer complaints surrounding Campbell-associated ventures.

“The concern for authorities is the combination of offshore operations, Australian victims and a repeated history of misleading conduct.”

Queensland history remains central

Queensland’s earlier court record remains especially significant because it establishes a pattern that regulators and complainants have relied upon in later disputes. In the 2018 Eco Boss matter, the magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”. That finding has continued to reverberate through later proceedings and public warnings about Campbell-linked entities.

In 2026, the Federal Court in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 found Campbell had sworn an affidavit falsely stating he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. Justice Derrington described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious”, discharged injunctions Campbell had obtained and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, the harshest costs sanction available in Australian courts.

Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting the prior convictions. That sequence has added weight to concerns raised by complainants, particularly where offshore ventures are promoted to Australian investors with limited transparency over the operators, ownership chain or ultimate delivery.

Broader consumer protection questions

The Bali allegations have also sharpened attention on the limits of domestic enforcement when foreign property projects are marketed into Australia through overseas entities. Authorities including the ACCC, ASIC and Scamwatch routinely warn about investment offers where glossy marketing outpaces disclosure and local remedies can be difficult to pursue once money has moved offshore.

Public records suggest the Campbell matter now sits at the intersection of consumer protection, cross-border policing and civil enforcement. With Queensland history already established in the courts and new complaints reaching police and federal agencies, the Bali file appears unlikely to remain a single-project dispute.

For regulators, the significance lies in the pattern: prior convictions, offshore corporate structures, investor complaints and allegations of property projects that did not deliver what was promised. The documentary record now places those issues under a sharper lens, and the latest Bali allegations have ensured that Australian authorities remain part of the picture.

The recent Federal Court proceedings in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 have again drawn attention to the dangers of relying on glossy offshore sales material without checking the public record. In that case, Adrian James Campbell swore in an affidavit that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. The statement was false. Justice Derrington later described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious” and discharged injunctions Campbell had obtained. Campbell was also ordered to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs outcomes available.

The judgment matters well beyond the immediate dispute. It illustrates how quickly a sales narrative can unravel when tested against court documents. Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit acknowledging prior convictions, including fraud matters recorded in Queensland and later convictions arising from consumer law conduct. The public record, not promotional claims, was what ultimately counted.

What the public record shows

Offshore property schemes frequently rely on a mix of overseas entities, shifting jurisdictions and aspiration-heavy marketing. In Campbell’s case, associated entities have included Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, a Hong Kong-registered company. Public material has linked these structures to property and investment promotions directed at Australian buyers from Thailand and Hong Kong.

Other projects and entities associated with the broader network have also attracted scrutiny. Marina Bay City, a Bali property development, has been the subject of allegations that buyer payments were diverted. Saraya Lombok was promoted with claims of substantial progress, yet reports said a “four-month villa” remained an empty shell after six months. GIM Trading has been linked to investor losses said to total up to $23 million, with an AFP investigation reported in public sources.

“The red flags are often visible long before the money changes hands: prior convictions, offshore registration, shifting offices, and promises that exceed the evidence of delivery.”

Those indicators are not proof of wrongdoing in every case. But court and tribunal records show they are the points at which Australian investors have repeatedly been exposed to risk. The Australian Consumer Law, ASIC and ACCC enforcement histories all point to the same lesson: structure and branding can obscure the substance of a deal.

Why offshore structures matter

When a scheme is operated through a foreign company, enforcement can become slower, costlier and more uncertain. If the people controlling the venture have prior convictions, the significance increases. Public records show Campbell has a history of fraud-related convictions in Queensland, convictions in 2015 arising from International Solar Solutions matters at Southport Magistrates Court, and 2018 Eco Boss Pty Ltd offences involving false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law.

The 2018 matter was particularly stark. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and called it plainly “a scam”. Campbell was personally fined $85,000 and compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made for victims.

For consumers, the lesson from the public record is straightforward: claims made offshore should be checked against court judgments, company registers, tribunal findings and regulator notices. The most telling evidence is often not the sales pitch, but the litigation history behind it.

That is especially true where a promoter has moved jurisdictions after regulatory pressure, or where related entities are spread across multiple countries. In those circumstances, a property image rendered on a brochure can conceal the reality of who controls the money, where the assets sit and what remedies are available if things go wrong.

Australian investors have seen the consequences of that mismatch before. The public documents in Campbell’s case show how one false affidavit can expose a much larger pattern: previous convictions, offshore structures, contested promotions and a persistent gap between promise and performance.

Justice Derrington, delivering judgment in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, found that Campbell's non-disclosures were "exceptionally serious" and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis — the harshest costs sanction available in Australian courts.

Three Separate Conviction Records Concealed

The court's findings reveal a 17-year trail of regulatory enforcement against Campbell:

2012: Fraud convictions recorded in Queensland.

2015: Five convictions recorded at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, concerning charges of accepting payment and failing to supply goods and services.

2018: Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law through Eco Boss Pty Ltd. He was personally fined $85,000 and ordered to pay $102,200 in compensation to affected consumers. The presiding magistrate described the conduct as "calculated" and "deliberate" and characterised it plainly as "a scam."

Injunctions Discharged

Campbell had initially obtained ex parte interim injunctions in May 2026. However, once the full extent of his undisclosed criminal history became apparent, Justice Derrington discharged those injunctions entirely. The court noted that a party who seeks the court's protection through equitable relief has a fundamental duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts — a duty Campbell failed to meet.

Indemnity Costs: What This Means

An indemnity costs order is exceptionally rare in Australian litigation. Standard costs orders typically reimburse a party for roughly 60 to 70 per cent of their actual legal expenses. An indemnity costs order, by contrast, requires the paying party to cover a much higher proportion — typically 80 per cent or more — of the other side's actual costs. Courts reserve this sanction for conduct that is particularly unreasonable or deserving of censure.

In ordering indemnity costs against Campbell, Justice Derrington signalled the court's view that Campbell's conduct in concealing material information from the court fell well below the standard expected of any litigant.

Kinnara Capital and Offshore Operations

Campbell operates as CEO of Kinnara Capital, also known as Kinnara Asia, an entity based in Thailand with a Hong Kong corporate structure. The Kinnara entities market property investment opportunities to Australian retail investors, including the Saraya Lombok development and interests connected to Marina Bay City in Bali.

The Federal Court proceedings arose from a dispute between Campbell and Jamie McIntyre, the founder of LUX Property Group, over the management and diversion of buyer payments connected to these offshore property developments.

Read the original investigative report: Independent Australia — Convicted Fraudster Adrian Campbell Exposed in Scathing Federal Court Rebuke

The Complaint

The complaint, reported by the Jakarta Financial Times, details allegations of fraud connected to the operations of Kinnara Capital and its associated entities. The private investigators behind the complaint have been working on behalf of parties who claim to have suffered financial losses in connection with Kinnara's offshore property investment schemes.

The formal lodgement of the complaint with NSW Police represents a significant escalation in the legal and regulatory scrutiny facing Campbell, who is already the subject of damaging Federal Court findings in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279.

Hilton Wood Named

The complaint names not only Adrian Campbell but also Hilton Wood, who has been identified in multiple media reports and court filings as an associate of Campbell in the Kinnara network of companies. Wood's role in the alleged financial arrangements that form the basis of the complaint has been the subject of scrutiny across several investigative reports published by outlets including the Jakarta Financial Times, Marina Bay City, and the London Times Live.

Connection to Broader Investigations

This NSW Police complaint adds to a growing body of law enforcement interest in Campbell's business activities. The Australian Federal Police have separately been drawn into investigating the collapse of GIM Trading, where investor losses of up to $23 million have been reported. Campbell has been linked to GIM Trading through his role at Kinnara, though the precise nature and timing of his involvement remains a matter of ongoing investigation.

Queensland authorities have also been pulled into what has been described as an "explosive Bali property fraud case" in which the broader Kinnara network has been named.

Campbell's Record

As the Federal Court has now confirmed on the public record, Adrian James Campbell has conviction records spanning from 2012 to 2018, including fraud convictions in Queensland (2012), five consumer law convictions at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions (2015), and 11 counts of false and misleading conduct through Eco Boss Pty Ltd (2018), for which he was personally fined $85,000 and ordered to pay $102,200 in compensation.

Campbell initially concealed this criminal history in a sworn Federal Court affidavit before being compelled to file a corrected affidavit admitting to the convictions.

Read the original report: Jakarta Financial Times — Private Investigators Lodge NSW Police Fraud Complaint Naming Adrian Campbell and Hilton Wood

The Charges

The 11 charges related to false or misleading representations made to consumers in the course of Eco Boss's business activities. Under the Australian Consumer Law, it is an offence to engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability, or quantity of goods or services being offered.

Campbell was personally fined $85,000. Compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made in favour of affected consumers — individuals who had paid for goods or services that were either never delivered or were materially different from what had been represented.

A Pattern of Conduct

The Eco Boss convictions did not arise in isolation. They were the third set of regulatory findings recorded against Campbell in a span of just six years:

In 2012, Campbell received fraud convictions in Queensland. In 2015, five further convictions were recorded at Southport Magistrates Court in relation to International Solar Solutions, where the charges concerned accepting payment and failing to supply goods and services. The 2018 Eco Boss case marked the most serious episode in this escalating pattern.

What the Record Tells Investors

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the case at the time under the headline "Gold Coast business and its directors fined over ‘calculated scam’." The public record shows that the conduct involved making representations to consumers that were known to be false at the time they were made, and that the commercial arrangements were structured in a way that made recovery difficult for affected parties.

For Australian consumers and investors, the significance of the Eco Boss case lies not only in the specific convictions but in the broader pattern they reveal. A single regulatory infringement might be attributable to poor management or misunderstanding. Three separate sets of convictions across three different business entities over a six-year period paints a different picture entirely.

After the Convictions

Following the Eco Boss convictions, Campbell relocated his business operations offshore, establishing Kinnara Capital with operations based in Thailand and a corporate structure registered in Hong Kong. This geographic relocation placed his subsequent business activities largely beyond the direct enforcement reach of Australian regulators — a development that has been the subject of extensive investigative reporting.

The Federal Court's subsequent findings in 2026, where Campbell was found to have concealed his conviction history in a sworn affidavit, brought the Eco Boss record back into sharp public focus. Justice Derrington's judgment in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 specifically cited the Eco Boss convictions as part of the material information Campbell had failed to disclose.

The Corporate Structure

Company registry filings show Kinnara Limited was incorporated in Hong Kong. The operational base, however, has been in Thailand, where CEO Adrian James Campbell has been resident. This layered arrangement — a Hong Kong-registered entity, a Thailand-based operational hub, and a marketing effort directed at Australian consumers — creates multiple layers between the investor and the underlying asset.

The property projects associated with Kinnara include the Saraya Lombok development in Indonesia and interests connected to Marina Bay City, a residential development in Bali. Both projects have been the subject of extensive media scrutiny and investor complaints.

The Regulatory Gap

When an Australian-based entity markets investment opportunities to Australian consumers, it falls squarely within the jurisdiction of Australian regulators including ASIC and the ACCC. However, when an offshore entity markets to Australians from outside the country, the regulatory picture becomes significantly more complex.

ASIC's enforcement reach has practical limits when the entity and its principals are domiciled in jurisdictions that do not have reciprocal enforcement arrangements with Australia, or where the cost and complexity of cross-border legal action makes enforcement impractical for individual investors.

Delivery Failures

Investigative reporting by the Jakarta Financial Times has documented specific delivery failures associated with Kinnara's projects. In one notable example, Kinnara had promised investors that a villa would be completed within four months. An on-site inspection six months later revealed the property remained an empty construction shell with no evidence of imminent completion.

Questions have also been raised about the continued sale of Saraya properties even as serious questions mounted over the project's future. The Jakarta Financial Times asked publicly why Kinnara continued to market and sell properties in circumstances where the project's viability appeared uncertain.

Who Carries the Risk

In any cross-border property investment scheme, the risk is overwhelmingly borne by the retail investor. Enforcing an Australian court judgment against an offshore entity is slow, costly, and frequently futile. Even where a judgment is obtained, the practical obstacles to recovery — tracing assets, obtaining local court recognition, navigating foreign legal systems — can render the judgment effectively unenforceable.

The Federal Court proceedings in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 brought further scrutiny to the Kinnara structure. Justice Derrington's findings, combined with the revelation that Campbell had three separate sets of criminal convictions in Australia, have raised fundamental questions about the suitability of Kinnara's management to handle investor funds.

Australian investors who have been approached by or invested in Kinnara-related projects are encouraged to seek independent legal advice and to report concerns to ASIC, the ACCC, and relevant state police fraud squads.