The convictions disclosed by Adrian Campbell appear to be only part of a much longer and deeply troubling history
Adrian James Campbell’s attempt to silence Jamie McIntyre has spectacularly backfired.
A newly published Federal Court judgment has placed Campbell’s criminal history on an official Australian government website—and recorded that he “substantially downplayed” that history when initially seeking an injunction against McIntyre.
In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Campbell made significant non-disclosures concerning his residence, the true nature of his claimed financial losses and the extent of his criminal history.
The Court discharged Campbell’s interim injunctions and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of McIntyre’s costs on an indemnity basis. (judgments.fedcourt.gov.au)
This was not a minor procedural oversight. Campbell had sworn in his initial affidavit that he had never been prosecuted in Australia for business practices, had never been convicted of a criminal offence and had not been involved in a 2018 case involving fines and compensation.
Those claims did not survive scrutiny.
Campbell forced to correct his evidence
The judgment records that Campbell subsequently filed another affidavit correcting his earlier evidence.
Campbell admitted that on 17 July 2015 he was convicted in Southport Magistrates Court on five Australian Consumer Law charges arising from International Solar Solutions. The offences involved accepting payments and failing to supply the promised goods or services.
Campbell was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay $18,355 in restitution.
The Queensland Office of Fair Trading reported that Campbell and fellow director Simon Gronow were found guilty of wrongly accepting payments from consumers for solar systems that were not supplied or installed as required. (judgments.fedcourt.gov.au, publications.qld.gov.au)
This was not the isolated misunderstanding Campbell’s original Federal Court affidavit might have led the Court to believe.
The judgment also records that on 12 March 2018 Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 charges of making false or misleading representations in connection with Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
He was fined $85,000, ordered to pay $102,200 in compensation, and convictions were formally recorded.
Contemporary reports described the Eco Boss operation as a “calculated” scam. Queensland government records state that Campbell, his fellow director and Eco Boss were collectively ordered to pay more than $579,000 in fines, compensation and costs. (canberratimes.com.au, publications.qld.gov.au, brisbanetimes.com.au)
Most damagingly, Campbell’s corrected affidavit also acknowledged that he had been convicted of fraud offences in 2012.
The Federal Court found that the failure to disclose these matters was significant—not only because they affected Campbell’s asserted reputation and claimed harm, but because they were relevant to whether McIntyre’s publications were likely to mislead readers about Campbell’s character.
In plain English: Campbell went to court seeking emergency orders to suppress publications concerning his history while giving the Court a materially incomplete account of that very history.
This is only part of the public record
Even the convictions now recorded in the Federal Court judgment appear to tell only part of Campbell’s history.
A 2009 report attributed to The Border Mail stated that a then-19-year-old Campbell faced charges involving theft, obtaining property by deception and handling stolen goods after more than a tonne of copper cable was allegedly removed from Telstra pits in Wodonga.
Police also alleged that Campbell had been involved in the theft of cabling in Queensland and the alteration of cheques. According to that report, police opposed relaxing his bail conditions to permit a Bali holiday because of concerns that he might not return.
The magistrate nevertheless permitted the temporary variation. These were allegations and charges reported at the time; the presently available material does not establish their ultimate disposition. They must therefore not be confused with Campbell’s subsequently admitted convictions. (adriancampbellbali.wordpress.com)
What is beyond dispute is that the Federal Court now records:
* Campbell’s 2012 fraud convictions;
* his 2015 consumer-law convictions involving money accepted for goods or services that were not supplied;
* his 2018 convictions for false or misleading representations;
* Campbell’s original sworn denials of that history; and
* his subsequent affidavit correcting those denials.
That is an extraordinary record for any businessman seeking the confidence of property buyers and investors.
Questions surrounding GIM Trading
Campbell’s history assumes even greater public importance amid continuing questions surrounding GIM Trading.
An ABC investigation reported that approximately 80 Australians paid about $23 million to GIM Trading for what they believed were low-risk corporate and government bond investments. ASIC alleged that the funds were not invested as promised and that most of the money was transferred through a Gold Coast foreign-exchange business to companies in Hong Kong.
The ABC identified Hilton Wood as a previous owner of GIM Trading. (abc.net.au, abc.net.au, abc.net.au, abc.net.au)
Jamie McIntyre alleges that Campbell had a concealed or beneficial involvement with GIM Trading alongside Wood. Campbell denies any involvement and says ASIC corporate extracts do not identify him as a director, shareholder, secretary or registered officeholder.
No court has determined that Campbell participated in the alleged GIM Trading fraud. That allegation should therefore be investigated on the evidence—not presented as an established judicial finding.
Nevertheless, Campbell’s admitted convictions and his association with Wood in later Lombok dealings make the questions legitimate, serious and deserving of examination by ASIC, police, liquidators and investigative journalists.
Marina Bay City: another multimillion-dollar dispute
Campbell and entities associated with Kinnara are also facing serious allegations concerning money paid by buyers connected with the Marina Bay City project in Lombok, Indonesia.
LUX Property Group and Jamie McIntyre allege that approximately AUD $6 million to $7 million in buyer payments was collected or redirected but not remitted to the Indonesian developer responsible for delivering the project.
They further allege that sales contracts were issued or altered to substitute offshore bank accounts while leaving development liabilities with LUX-associated Indonesian companies.
Campbell disputes allegations of wrongdoing. These allegations remain subject to investigation and ongoing legal proceedings and have not been finally determined by a court.
However, the Federal Court judgment makes one matter unmistakably clear: when Campbell first obtained orders suppressing McIntyre’s publications, he did so without properly disclosing his residence, the identity of the companies said to have suffered his claimed losses, or the true extent of his criminal history.
The Court found all three non-disclosures significant and discharged the injunction.
Saraya Lombok buyers deserve answers
Further questions now surround Campbell’s Saraya Lombok project.
McIntyre and LUX allege that Saraya has collected millions of dollars from purchasers while failing to complete a single villa. They also allege that serious land, access, title and development issues have not been adequately disclosed to buyers.
Campbell and the relevant Saraya entities should be given a full opportunity to respond to each allegation and produce evidence showing:
* precisely how much money has been collected from purchasers;
* where those funds are currently held;
* how much has been spent on construction;
* whether the project land is undisputed and legally buildable;
* which development approvals have been obtained;
* whether construction contracts are in place;
* how many villas have commenced construction;
* how many villas have been completed; and
* when every purchaser can realistically expect delivery.
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions any responsible property developer handling millions of dollars should be able to answer.
The silence strategy has failed
Campbell went to the Federal Court seeking to remove videos and articles, restrain further publication and silence allegations about his conduct.
Instead, the proceeding has produced an official Federal Court judgment recording his convictions and finding that his criminal history had been substantially downplayed.
The judgment does not determine every allegation concerning GIM Trading, Marina Bay City or Saraya Lombok. Nor does it excuse publishers from accurately distinguishing proven convictions from unresolved claims.
But Campbell can no longer credibly portray questions about his history as baseless inventions.
His 2012 fraud convictions are now recorded by the Federal Court. His 2015 and 2018 convictions are now recorded by the Federal Court. His initial sworn denials and subsequent corrections are now recorded by the Federal Court. The discharge of the injunction and the indemnity-costs order are now recorded by the Federal Court.
The public record is no longer hidden.
For investors, regulators and journalists, the central question is no longer whether Adrian Campbell has a relevant criminal history.
The Federal Court has answered that.
The questions now are how much more remains undisclosed, what happened to the millions connected with his subsequent business dealings, and whether authorities will investigate before another group of investors suffers devastating losses.
Editorial note: The GIM Trading, Marina Bay City and Saraya Lombok allegations remain disputed and have not been finally determined by a court. Campbell and all relevant entities are entitled to respond. References to the 2009 matters concern reported charges and police allegations, not proven convictions. This article distinguishes those unresolved matters from the convictions expressly recorded in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279.
Leave a comment