From GIM Trading to Lombok: Fresh Questions Surround Adrian Campbell and Hilton Wood

Investigative Report

From GIM Trading to Lombok: Fresh Questions Surround Adrian Campbell and Hilton Wood

Serious questions are again being raised about the business dealings of Adrian Campbell, CEO of Kinnara (also referred to in some materials as Canara), and his long-time associate Hilton Wood, following earlier national media coverage of their previous venture, GIM Trading.

An ABC investigation in Australia reported that GIM Trading was linked to alleged losses of approximately AUD $23 million belonging to mostly elderly Australian investors. According to ABC reporting, as much as $17 million was transferred overseas, with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) pursuing recovery efforts.

ABC coverage detailed cases where retirees reportedly lost between $750,000 and $1.6 million each. ASIC has publicly warned investors in relation to the company.

(ABC Investigation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-15/gim-trading-alleged-fraud-investors-bonds/105747410)

Prior Regulatory and Legal Issues

Public records and prior media reporting have also referenced past regulatory actions involving Adrian Campbell.

The Canberra Times and Brisbane Times previously reported on enforcement actions involving Queensland’s Department of Fair Trading relating to earlier business activities connected to Campbell.

In addition, historic reporting, including coverage in The Border Mail, referenced police action involving cheque-related offences. Those matters were reported at the time in connection with prior business disputes.

These historical matters, while separate from current disputes, are now being re-examined by critics in light of fresh allegations.

New Allegations in Lombok

The controversy has now shifted to Indonesia, where Campbell and Wood were formerly involved in the Marina Bay City development project in Lombok.

Sources connected to the project allege that approximately AUD $9.3 million paid by villa investors was not fully remitted to PT Marina Bay Investments, the authorised project entity. Instead, it is alleged that significant portions were transferred to PT Marina Bay Group, a separate entity described by insiders as a “copycat” company allegedly set up to resemble the official project operator.

Representatives of Marina Bay City claim:

* The authorised company did not receive the full investor payments.
* Investors may have been unaware funds were allegedly directed elsewhere.
* The entity receiving funds had a confusingly similar name.

These allegations have not yet been determined by a court, and Campbell and Wood have previously denied wrongdoing in past disputes.