Eyewitness News – HOTEL K SEMINYAK
05.September. 2026
As quoted by the Australian media outlet, Daily Mail, yesterday on October 5, 2026.
According to Jamie McIntyre, as a shareholder of Marina Bay City Lombok, Jamie McIntyre make addtional statement to Bali Eyewitness News at Hotel K Seminyak.
Lawyers allege purchaser contracts contained altered banking instructions, while LUX Property Group says an independent audit records AUD $3.672 million reaching the developer against estimated purchaser payments of AUD $10 million.
Adrian Campbell’s explanation in the Daily Mail that Kinnara acted as a sales and marketing agent and did not hold purchaser funds is being challenged by investors’ lawyers, who allege buyers paid into accounts linked to Kinnara, Campbell and associated companies.
The dispute concerns purchaser money intended for the Marina Bay City development in Lombok, and whether contracts and payment instructions were changed without the developer’s authority.
Investors’ lawyers allege that banking details in sales contracts were altered to direct payments into Campbell-linked accounts. Separately, LUX Property Group states that it did not authorise the disputed banking changes or the issuing of those contracts. It alleges that Campbell and associated parties issued contracts, collected investor money and concealed those activities from the developer.
The purchaser-payment allegations have not been established by a final judgment in the material reviewed for this article. However, the supplied correspondence raises specific questions about Campbell’s description of Kinnara’s involvement.
Purchaser reportedly paid Kinnara Limited directly
Correspondence supplied as coming from a lawyer working with affected investors states that payments were traced through invoices and remittance records.
One message identifies purchaser Jacobus Niemand as having paid directly to a Bank of China account in Hong Kong named Kinnara Limited.
That reported payment requires reconciliation with Campbell’s explanation that Kinnara did not hold purchaser funds. Receiving money, holding it temporarily and transferring it to the developer are distinct stages that banking records should establish.
The underlying invoices, remittances and receiving-bank statements were not supplied for independent review. The correspondence records the lawyer’s account of the payment trail; it does not establish the subsequent movement of the money.
Other supplied messages identify payments by Bec Cuthbertson and Midhat Begic to an ANZ account named Marina Bay Lombok Pty.
Correspondence concerning Paul Thompson’s superannuation fund lists banking details for Australasia Marketing Pty Ltd at Bendigo Bank, alongside an alternative account named Kinnara Limited in Hong Kong. The excerpt does not clearly establish which account received that purchaser’s payment.
The lawyers allege these arrangements involved unauthorised alterations to purchaser contracts. Establishing that requires comparing developer-approved documents with the versions issued to buyers and identifying who directed the changes.
AUD $3.672 million reportedly reached the developer
According to LUX Property Group’s account of an independent auditor’s report, AUD $3.18 million and a further AUD $492,000 were remitted to the developer—a combined AUD $3.672 million.
Total purchaser payments are estimated at approximately AUD $10 million.
If those figures cover the same transactions and reporting period, approximately AUD $6.328 million remains to be reconciled between estimated purchaser payments and reported developer receipts. That calculation alone does not establish how the difference was used or who retained it.
Investors’ lawyers believe total payments could be higher, potentially by millions of dollars, because additional purchasers may not yet have come forward to the developer with their contracts and payment records.
A complete purchaser-by-purchaser reconciliation is needed to establish the total collected and its destination.
Hilton Wood and the disputed GIM Trading connection
LUX further alleges that millions of dollars were paid through an Australian company account associated with Hilton Wood.
It says Wood was presented as an independent transfer-service provider despite having a business relationship with Campbell. The nature of that relationship, the representations made to purchasers and the onward movement of their money require documentary verification.
LUX also alleges that Campbell founded and directed GIM Trading. Campbell publicly denies any connection to that company.
Cybercrime investigator Ken Gamble told the ABC: “This was one of the most sophisticated frauds that I have seen in this area of bond frauds.” His assessment concerned the alleged GIM Trading operation. (abc.net.au)
The ABC separately identified Wood as GIM Trading’s previous owner. Wood said he and a business partner had sold the company and expressed concern about allegations concerning its activities after the sale. The report did not identify that business partner. (abc.net.au)
It was stated privately that Campbell was behind GIM Trading. It was also alleged that his explanation was that he had sold the company to friends. Those private accounts have not been independently verified.
If substantiated, a statement that Campbell sold the company would directly contradict a blanket denial of any connection. His original statement and the ownership and sale records are therefore central evidence.
Separately, it was stated privately that investigators needed sufficient admissible evidence to establish Campbell’s alleged involvement, and that his presence in Thailand complicated their work. No public AFP confirmation of that account has been obtained.
The ABC reporting reviewed records Gamble’s assessment that an overseas organisation was behind the alleged fraud, but does not identify Campbell as its controller. (abc.net.au)
Campbell has also disputed descriptions of Wood as Kinnara’s chief financial officer, stating that Wood’s role concerned the separate Marina Bay City development entity. (linkedin.com)
Eco Boss proceedings and allegations of a repeated media strategy
LUX alleges that Campbell has conducted a sustained online and media campaign against Jamie McIntyre and the developer, damaging their reputation and undermining sales.
It describes an alleged pattern involving the copying of a business’s commercial model or branding, followed by accusations against the original operator when disputes arise. LUX contends that adverse publicity weakens the targeted business while diverting attention from Campbell’s conduct.
The earlier Eco Boss proceedings are documented. An Australian Consumer Law government report records that, on 12 March 2018, Southport Magistrates Court ordered Eco Boss directors Adrian James Campbell and Samuel Edward Newnham to pay more than AUD $579,579 collectively in fines, compensation and court costs following a Queensland Office of Fair Trading investigation. The case concerned purportedly exclusive distribution licences for smoke-detection technology. (consumer.gov.au)
According to LUX’s account of court documents from those proceedings, the UK business owner alleged that Campbell commissioned paid online articles and a public relations campaign to damage the owner’s company and shift blame onto it. The owner reportedly stated that the company’s sales fell to zero.
The underlying documents containing those statements have not been reviewed for this article. The alleged campaign and its consequences remain attributed to the owner’s evidence as described by LUX, rather than presented as findings by the court.
LUX argues that the alleged similarities warrant scrutiny of whether comparable tactics were used against McIntyre and the Marina Bay City developer.
Mainstream media sourcing under scrutiny
McIntyre and LUX also challenge Channel Nine’s A Current Affair coverage, alleging that much of the material used against them was supplied by Campbell and Kinnara. They describe the broadcast as part of the alleged campaign against the developer.
That allegation raises questions about source verification, disclosure of commercial conflicts and the testing of claims made by parties to an active business dispute. It does not itself establish that Nine knowingly participated in a coordinated campaign.
Nine’s published account includes McIntyre’s rejection of allegations against him and his counter-allegations concerning Kinnara. The extent to which Campbell or Kinnara supplied other material, and how that material was verified, remains disputed. (9now.nine.com.au)
Campbell’s position and the unresolved payment trail
In the supplied Daily Mail excerpts, Campbell says Kinnara acted as a sales and marketing agent and did not hold purchaser funds. He also says Kinnara lodged its own report with Indonesian police and is cooperating with authorities.
Campbell disputes allegations against him, maintains that he has himself been subjected to a sustained campaign and says he will defend his reputation through the courts.
His denial should be tested against the contracts, payment instructions, ownership records and movement of purchaser money.
For affected investors, the essential evidence is a complete reconciliation linking each contract and payment instruction to the receiving account, subsequent transfers and final developer receipt. Until that reconciliation is available, the reported difference between purchaser payments and developer receipts remains unresolved.
Reporter : Daniel Herry
