Marketing to Australians From Offshore: The Regulatory Gap That Operators Exploit

Australian consumer-protection and financial-services laws are among the most comprehensive in the world. Yet Australian investors continue to lose hundreds of millions of dollars each year to offshore operators. Understanding why requires understanding the regulatory gap — and how sophisticated operators exploit it.

The Gap in Plain Terms

Australian regulators — ASIC, the ACCC, state fair-trading bodies — have jurisdiction over conduct that occurs within Australia. They can, with difficulty, pursue operators who conduct business from offshore if their conduct is directed at Australians. But they cannot easily recover money that has been moved to foreign bank accounts, and they cannot compel a person residing in Thailand to appear before an Australian court without complex and time-consuming international legal assistance processes.

The most effective protection is prevention. The time to discover that an operator has a documented history of consumer-law breaches and fraud convictions is before you invest — not after.

How Operators Structure Affairs to Exploit the Gap

Sophisticated operators understand the regulatory gap precisely and structure their affairs to exploit it. They may:

• Maintain an Australian entity on paper while conducting all meaningful business activity offshore
• Use complex corporate structures — holding companies in Singapore, operating entities in Indonesia, distribution arrangements in Australia — that are difficult for regulators to unravel
• Reside in a country with no extradition treaty for civil matters
• Hold assets in foreign jurisdictions where Australian judgments cannot be directly enforced

The Kinnara Case: A Live Example

The 2026 Federal Court proceedings involving Adrian James Campbell and Kinnara illustrate the regulatory gap in a concrete way. Campbell resides in Thailand. The Kinnara entities are associated with a Hong Kong-registered company. The underlying property development is in Indonesia. Yet the marketing was directed at Australian investors.

For those investors, the practical options if things go wrong are limited and expensive. Australian regulators can investigate and report. They cannot automatically compel a Thai resident to appear before an Australian court, and they cannot seize assets held in Hong Kong.

Digital Marketing from Offshore

The Federal Court judgment reveals that the marketing of the Marina Bay City development was conducted through WhatsApp groups, video publications, and websites — all maintainable from anywhere in the world at minimal cost. ASIC's annual reports consistently note the growth of offshore-based investment marketing directed at Australians.

"The most effective tool that subsequent potential investors have is knowledge of the prior record. That knowledge is freely available. It requires only the willingness to look." — Fraud Records and Scam Warnings, Evan Mercer (2026)