Desperate Move? Kinnara CEO Adrian Campbell Accused of Reissuing Contracts as Marina Bay City Money Trail Deepens
New evidence is emerging that critics say points to a last-ditch attempt by Kinnara CEO Adrian Campbell to rewrite the paper trail surrounding the controversial Marina Bay City Lombok project.
An email now circulating among investors shows Kinnara sending out “countersigned contracts” accompanied by a DocuSign certificate, claiming the documents were signed by a former director of Bali Real Estate Investments (BREI).
But according to sources close to Lux Property Group, that individual is no longer a director of BREI and has allegedly since moved across to work with Kinnara after what insiders describe as intense pressure, including the filing of police complaints and threats she could face jail if she did not cooperate.
The allegation now being raised is explosive:
Why are contracts being issued now claiming to be signed in the capacity of a BREI director if that person no longer holds that position and is now working for the opposing side?
Critics say this raises serious concerns about whether the documents are being used to retroactively legitimize transactions that are already under scrutiny.
⸻
The $5 Million Question
At the centre of the dispute are allegations that more than $5 million of investor funds linked to the Marina Bay City project may have been diverted into copycat companies.
According to Lux-aligned sources, one of those entities is PT Marina Bay Group, a company that allegedly mirrors the name and branding of the real project but was set up separately with shares issued to Adrian Campbell or entities connected to him.
Those allegations have not yet been tested in court, but investigators and investors are increasingly asking where the money went.
What Lux representatives say they know is simple:
Of the roughly $9–10 million believed to have been raised through the joint venture structure, only about half ever reached the legitimate project side.
The rest, they allege, vanished into parallel entities.
⸻
The Hong Kong Payment Trail
Further raising alarm are claims that some investors were directed to send funds to Kinnara Limited in Hong Kong.
Critics argue that this entity was never authorised to receive funds for the Marina Bay City project, which was being marketed as an Indonesian development through the joint venture structure.
Several investors who have recently come forward say they believed they were purchasing into the Marina Bay City project promoted through Lux, yet were later provided contracts and payment instructions involving different entities and different bank accounts.
The question now being asked is straightforward:
How did investors who thought they were buying into Marina Bay City through Lux end up sending funds to unrelated companies or overseas entities?
⸻
Who Was Actually Authorised to Sign?
BREI, part of the Lux Property Group structure involved in the Marina Bay City project, says the situation surrounding the contracts raises serious questions.
According to Lux-aligned sources, the former BREI director referenced in the documents did not have authority to sign contracts that BREI was not aware of, particularly where payments were being directed to entities outside the legitimate project structure.
Lux representatives state that BREI was only aware of contracts issued to clients paying into the legitimate project entities connected to the Marina Bay City development.
The controversy deepened when contracts later circulated by Kinnara appeared to carry the digital signature of that BREI director.
However, sources say the director initially denied signing those documents, reportedly stating, “No, I didn’t sign them.”
Critics now allege that Kinnara administrative staff may have been applying her digital signature to large numbers of contracts and altering payment instructions, including amending bank account details so that investor funds were directed to entities controlled by Kinnara rather than the legitimate project companies.
Those allegations have not been tested in court, but they are now central to the dispute.
The situation has become even more controversial after the director later left the employ of BREI and was reportedly recruited by Kinnara.
Sources close to the project say it now appears her role within Kinnara involves signing contracts for BREI clients despite no longer working for BREI, while also publicly stating she had originally signed the contracts, a position critics say contradicts her earlier statements denying she had done so.
For observers following the dispute, the sequence raises a troubling question:
If contracts were initially denied as being signed by the director, who was applying the digital signature to those documents and directing investor payments to different bank accounts?
⸻
A Growing List of Investors Speaking Out
As the dispute escalates, more investors are reportedly contacting investigators and journalists claiming they were misled.
Many say they were drawn to the project by the Marina Bay City branding and Lux marketing, believing they were purchasing villas or land within the legitimate development.
Instead, some now claim their paperwork points to entities that appear separate from the project they believed they were investing in.
The emerging pattern, critics say, suggests buyers may have been directed into a maze of similarly named companies, creating confusion about which entity was actually receiving their funds.
⸻
Rewriting History?
The latest move by Kinnara to circulate newly “countersigned” contracts is now being interpreted by critics as an attempt to rebuild a legal paper trail after the fact.
Lux-aligned sources argue that if everything was legitimate from the beginning, the solution would be simple:
Release the bank records.
Show exactly which entity received investor funds.
Explain why multiple similarly named companies were involved.
Clarify why contracts appeared carrying the digital signature of a BREI director who initially denied signing them.
And explain why investor payment instructions allegedly directed funds to companies outside the legitimate Marina Bay City structure.
Instead, critics say the emergence of new contracts only deepens the mystery.
⸻
The Pressure Is Mounting
Behind the scenes, investigators are reportedly examining not only the Marina Bay City money trail, but also connections to earlier controversies involving companies associated with Adrian Campbell and his CFO Hilton Wood, including the collapse of GIM Trading where $23 million of client funds went missing, according to previous Australian media reports.
Whether the Marina Bay dispute will ultimately become a regulatory or criminal matter remains to be seen.
But one thing is becoming increasingly clear.
The more investors who come forward saying:
“I thought I was buying into Marina Bay City.”
…the harder it will be to ignore the growing questions surrounding where their money actually went.