Why Would KINARA Accept a Multi-Million-Dollar Buyout — Then Publicly Deny It?

A growing controversy surrounds KINARA — stylised K-I-N-N-A-R-A — after the company reportedly accepted a multi-million-dollar buyout from Marina Bay City Lombok, only to later deny that such a buyout ever occurred. The situation has left investors, partners, and observers asking a simple but serious question: why would a company willingly agree to, organise, and accept millions of dollars in a buyout and then publicly claim it was never bought out?

According to those familiar with the transaction, KINARA and Marina Bay City Lombok mutually agreed earlier this year to a full buyout of KINARA’s position in the Marina Bay City project.

The agreed figure, depending on which tranche of payments is counted, is reported by insiders to be as high as AUD $5.5 million.

Multiple public press releases were issued and authorised by both parties announcing the buyout and the transition of 100% ownership and management control to Marina Bay City’s new owners.

Funds were reportedly received and banked by KINARA without dispute.

Despite the agreement, the payments, and the joint announcements, KINARA has recently begun telling its clients and network that it was “not bought out” of the Marina Bay City project.

This sudden reversal has left many confused — and others deeply concerned.

Industry insiders say this behaviour is unprecedented for a company that willingly negotiated a buyout, received the funds, and watched a public announcement go live with its own authorisation.

After the buyout was completed, KINARA was expected to hand over the core digital assets of the project, including:

•marinabaycity.com

•The “Marina Bay Lombok” Facebook page

•Other related digital channels and marketing assets

Instead, KINARA has refused to transfer these assets and has allegedly continued to use them to:

•market unrelated KINARA projects,

•mislead clients into believing KINARA is still associated with Marina Bay City,

•bait-and-switch Marina Bay City enquiries into its own offerings.

Marina Bay City’s owners call this a clear attempt to mislead the public, citing multiple instances where clients believed they were communicating with the official project — only to discover they were corresponding with KINARA.

Analysts Suggest Only One Plausible Explanation**

Business analysts reviewing the situation suggest there is only one logical explanation for the behaviour:

KINARA never intended to genuinely exit the project.

Instead, according to these observers, KINARA may have:

1.Agreed to and negotiated the buyout,

2.Accepted and banked millions of dollars,

3.Issued public statements confirming its departure,

4.Then attempted to reverse the narrative,

5.While using the buyout money to purchase more land inside Marina Bay City and market it independently to its own database.

If true, this points to a pattern that observers describe as deceptive, calculated, and strategically designed to mislead — potentially amounting to extortion under the guise of a legitimate buyout.

Clients are caught in the middle.

Those approaching Marina Bay City through older or unofficial digital channels may unknowingly be redirected to unrelated properties. Some customers have already reported confusion and misrepresentation, believing they were investing in Marina Bay City when they were dealing with KINARA.

Industry experts warn that if these allegations are substantiated, the behaviour represents one of the most brazen misuses of digital project assets seen in Indonesia’s emerging property markets.

The new 100% owners of Marina Bay City have reiterated:

•KINARA has no ownership stake,

•no management role,

•and no legal right to promote or represent the Marina Bay City project in any capacity.

They also emphasise that all land and villa sales within Marina Bay City must be conducted directly through Marina Bay City or its official owner, LUX Property, to ensure buyers are protected from misleading conduct.

The situation raises critical questions:

•Why accept millions of dollars from a buyout if you intend to deny it?

•Why authorise press releases announcing your exit — then later claim the opposite?

•Why refuse to hand over digital assets that belong to the project you were paid to leave?

•And why use those assets to continue marketing to unsuspecting clients?

Until KINARA provides transparent answers, speculation will only grow — and investors will rightly demand clarity.