Hilton Wood Faces Legal Demand to Explain Millions Transferred From Marina Bay Project Accounts
Wood given seven days to produce bank statements and written authority for transfers allegedly made to Adrian Campbell-controlled entities
Hilton Wood has been served with a formal legal demand requiring him to explain the transfer of millions of Australian dollars from Marina Bay Holdings and associated accounts to companies allegedly controlled by Adrian Campbell.
LUX Property Group alleges that the money belonged to the Marina Bay City project, its developer or affected property purchasers.
The demand requires Wood to produce complete bank statements, transfer records and written corporate authorities showing who instructed and approved each payment.
If Wood cannot produce that authority, LUX says it intends to pursue him civilly and, where the evidence supports it, refer the matter to law-enforcement authorities for criminal investigation.
Who authorised the transfers?
The central question facing Wood is simple:
What written authority permitted him to send millions of dollars to PT Marina Bay Group, Hong Kong entities and other companies allegedly controlled by Campbell?
LUX says Wood has failed or refused to hand over complete statements for the relevant bank accounts.
Without those statements, the developer cannot conclusively trace the project funds, identify every recipient or determine what legitimate benefit—if any—the Marina Bay City project received in return.
Wood has now been required to identify:
* every payment made to Campbell or a Campbell-associated entity;
* the amount, date and currency of each transfer;
* the originating and recipient bank accounts;
* the legal and beneficial owner of each recipient account;
* who requested each payment;
* who approved it;
* the stated commercial purpose; and
* the goods, services or assets received in return.
He must also produce board resolutions, shareholder approvals, payment instructions, agreements, invoices, SWIFT confirmations and communications with Campbell or his representatives.
Was Wood genuinely independent?
LUX alleges that Wood represented himself as operating an independent payment-transfer or payment-administration service.
The company now disputes that claimed independence.
It alleges that Wood and Campbell had a pre-existing business association and that available WhatsApp communications and other records contradict any suggestion that their relationship was merely that of independent service provider and client.
Those allegations require documentary testing and have not yet been determined by a court.
The GIM Trading connection
Wood was previously the owner of Global Investment Marketing, known as GIM Trading.
ABC’s 7.30 reported that GIM Trading was accused of defrauding investors who believed they were purchasing low-risk corporate and government bonds. The National Anti-Scam Centre had reportedly received complaints involving almost AUD $8 million in losses, while later reporting said ASIC alleged that the company received approximately AUD $23 million before most of the money was transferred offshore to companies in Hong Kong.
The ABC reported Wood’s statement that he sold GIM Trading before it received clients or raised investor money. The person who subsequently became the company’s public face disputed being involved in purchasing it. ABC News investigation
The published material does not, by itself, prove that Wood participated in the later alleged GIM Trading fraud. It does, however, confirm his previous ownership of the company and creates legitimate questions about its transfer and his prior business relationships.
LUX alleges that additional WhatsApp evidence connects Wood and Campbell and disputes claims that they were not prior business associates.
Seven days to disclose the records
Wood has been given seven days to provide complete, unredacted statements for every relevant account under his control.
He must also disclose any fee, commission, percentage or other benefit he received in connection with the transfers.
Screenshots, selected extracts or partially redacted statements will not satisfy the demand. LUX is seeking original records, complete transaction data and metadata where available.
Wood has also been directed to preserve all bank records, emails, WhatsApp and Signal messages, accounting files, devices and cloud backups. Any destruction or concealment of relevant evidence after receiving notice could carry serious legal consequences.
Civil proceedings and potential criminal referral
If Wood fails to provide a satisfactory response, LUX says it intends to commence civil proceedings seeking:
* a full account of all money received and transferred;
* production of banking and accounting records;
* tracing and recovery of project funds;
* restitution, damages and equitable compensation;
* freezing and preservation orders;
* relief for alleged fraud, knowing assistance, knowing receipt or breach of duty; and
* legal costs and interest.
Separately, LUX says it may refer the evidence to authorities in Australia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and other relevant jurisdictions if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, misappropriation, money laundering, document falsification or concealment of financial records.
The legal demand does not mean Wood has been charged or found guilty of an offence. Any criminal allegation must be investigated and proved according to law.
Will Wood identify who gave the instructions?
Wood now has an opportunity to produce written evidence showing that the transfers were properly authorised and made for legitimate project purposes.
If Campbell instructed the transfers, Wood must explain why he believed Campbell had the legal authority to control the funds.
An instruction from Campbell would not, by itself, establish lawful authority if the money belonged to the developer, project purchasers or another company.
The decisive evidence should be contained in the bank statements, payment instructions and corporate resolutions now demanded from Wood.
If those documents establish proper authority, they should resolve the question. If they do not, Wood may face significant civil exposure and possible referral for criminal investigation.
Hilton Wood should be offered a reasonable opportunity to respond before publication. Any response received should be published prominently and fairly.
