Alongside decades in prison, fugitive Michael Lizaso Marasigan has been ordered to pay more than $10.7 million in restitution and face nearly $6 million in federal asset forfeiture after the Guam charity bingo fraud conviction.
VANCOUVER, BC. Michael Lizaso Marasigan’s punishment did not end with a federal prison sentence because the fugitive bingo operator now faces a crushing financial judgment designed to strip away proceeds, repay victims, and follow him wherever enforcement authorities can reach assets.
On May 18, 2026, Marasigan was sentenced in absentia to 262 months in federal prison, ordered to pay $10,750,804 in joint and several restitutions to the Aloha Shriners, and hit with a $5,871,493 money judgment forfeiture.
The financial penalties were imposed after a federal jury convicted Marasigan in connection with the Hafa Adai Bingo fraud scheme, a years-long operation that prosecutors said disguised illegal gambling and money laundering behind a children’s medical-travel charity.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice announcement on the Guam bingo operators’ federal prison sentences, the operation generated approximately $34 million in gross bingo proceeds while defendants diverted and laundered $10,750,804 that should have gone to the Aloha Shriners.
The financial sentence was not symbolic.
Restitution and forfeiture are sometimes treated as secondary penalties after prison time, but in Marasigan’s case, the money judgments are central because prosecutors said the fraud was built around diverting charitable proceeds for personal gain.
The restitution order aims to compensate the Aloha Shriners for net bingo proceeds that should have supported the Guam Shrine Club’s stated charitable purpose of helping children and one guardian travel to Hawaii for medical care.
The forfeiture judgment targets Marasigan’s alleged criminal gain, reflecting the government’s position that he personally benefited from proceeds connected to the illegal gambling and laundering operation.
Together, the two orders create a financial burden exceeding $16.6 million before assessments, interest, collection costs, asset recovery complications, and any future enforcement expenses are considered.
The message is clear because federal punishment in a financial crime case not only takes liberty, but also follows the money.
Restitution targets the charitable loss.
The $10,750,804 restitution figure represents the amount prosecutors said was diverted and laundered from the net proceeds that should have gone to the Aloha Shriners.
That number is not incidental because it ties the financial judgment directly to the central betrayal in the case, where patrons were told that Hafa Adai Bingo proceeds would support children’s medical travel, while millions allegedly moved elsewhere.
Restitution is different from a fine because it is designed to address victim loss rather than punish the defendant purely for wrongdoing.
In this case, the victim identified for restitution was the Aloha Shriners, which held Shrine jurisdiction over Guam and was supposed to receive the net proceeds tied to the charitable mission.
The restitution order, therefore, attempts to restore the money trail to the place prosecutors said it should have gone from the beginning.
Forfeiture targets personal gain.
The $5,871,493 forfeiture money judgment against Marasigan is separate from restitution because forfeiture is meant to deprive a defendant of proceeds connected to criminal conduct.
In federal financial crime cases, forfeiture can be powerful because it allows authorities to pursue property, accounts, substitute assets, and financial interests connected to unlawful proceeds when direct funds are no longer available.
The judgment does not depend on Marasigan keeping the same cash in the same account because federal forfeiture can become a continuing collection tool if authorities identify recoverable assets later.
That distinction matters for fugitives because leaving the jurisdiction does not automatically protect property, especially when bank records, businesses, real estate, nominees, family transfers, and international accounts can become subjects of financial investigation.
For Marasigan, the forfeiture order means the government is not merely waiting for custody because it is also pursuing value.
The court also imposed smaller mandatory assessments.
In addition to the restitution and forfeiture orders, Marasigan was ordered to pay a $6,500 mandatory assessment fee tied to his convictions.
That assessment is small compared with the multimillion-dollar restitution and forfeiture figures, but it reflects the layered nature of federal sentencing, where prison, restitution, forfeiture, assessments, supervised release, and collection mechanisms can all operate together.
The financial package shows that federal courts can attack white-collar crime through multiple channels, especially when the conduct involves fraud, money laundering, illegal gambling, and community harm.
Marasigan’s sentence therefore carries three messages at once, including prison for punishment, restitution for loss, and forfeiture for unlawful gain.
The money judgment is not an afterthought because it is part of the architecture of accountability.
The co-defendants also face financial consequences.
Marasigan was not the only defendant ordered to pay because Jose Arthur “Art” Chan Jr. and Christine Chan also received prison terms, restitution obligations, forfeiture judgments, and assessment fees.
Art Chan was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison, ordered to pay joint and several restitutions of $10,750,804 to the Aloha Shriners, and hit with a $339,013 money judgment forfeiture.
Christine Chan was sentenced to 70 months in federal prison, ordered to pay the same joint and several restitution amount, and hit with an $871,500 money judgment forfeiture.
Those figures show that the court treated the operation as a coordinated financial conspiracy rather than a single-defendant diversion.
Marasigan’s forfeiture judgment was the largest among the principal defendants, reinforcing his central role in the financial consequences of the case.
Joint and several restitutions increases collection pressure.
The phrase “joint and several restitutions ” means the defendants can be collectively responsible for the same loss amount, allowing the government to seek recovery from multiple defendants until the restitution obligation is satisfied.
This structure matters because fraud proceeds rarely remain neatly divided after a scheme collapses, especially when money has moved through personal accounts, related parties, expenses, assets, or concealed transfers.
Joint and several liability gives enforcement authorities more flexibility because each responsible defendant may become a target for collection efforts connected to the same victim loss.
For the Aloha Shriners, the practical importance is that restitution is not dependent on one person’s willingness to pay voluntarily.
For Marasigan, the practical danger is that his financial liability survives even while he remains outside custody.
The money was supposed to help children travel.
The moral force behind the restitution order comes from the stated charitable purpose because Hafa Adai Bingo patrons were told proceeds would help children and one parent or guardian travel to Shriners Children’s medical care in Hawaii.
That mission carried obvious emotional power because medical travel from Guam can involve airfare, lodging, family disruption, fear, lost work, and the stress of seeking specialized treatment away from home.
When money represented as support for that purpose is diverted, the harm is more than financial because it strikes at the community’s willingness to believe charitable appeals.
A Hawaii News Now report on the Guam bingo fraud case described anger from people connected to the Shriners mission, reflecting the emotional damage created when sick children’s needs are used as a fundraising shield.
The restitution figure puts a dollar amount on the diversion, but it cannot fully price the betrayal.
The gross proceeds show the scale of the machine.
Hafa Adai Bingo generated approximately $34 million in gross bingo proceeds between March 2015 and December 31, 2021, according to federal prosecutors.
That figure explains why the case moved beyond a local dispute and became a major federal fraud prosecution involving illegal gambling, wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and multiple money laundering counts.
A charitable bingo parlor might appear modest from the outside, but the gross proceeds show how a familiar community activity can become a high-volume financial operation when conducted over the years.
The public saw bingo, community fundraising, and a children’s medical-travel story, while investigators later saw proceeds, bank records, laundering activity, and diversion.
The gap between appearance and scale is one reason the financial penalties became so severe.
Only a small amount reached the mission.
Federal prosecutors said approximately $140,378 of bingo proceeds was used between 2015 and 2020 to pay the Aloha Shriners and for air transportation, while no bingo proceeds were used for the Guam Shrine Club’s charitable purpose in 2021.
That detail is devastating because it shows the difference between what patrons were told and how little money prosecutors said actually supported the advertised medical-travel mission.
The financial judgment is therefore built around the difference between charitable representation and actual distribution.
When a fundraising operation repeatedly invokes sick children but sends only a small fraction of proceeds toward the stated purpose, the public loss becomes inseparable from the moral deception.
The numbers tell the story more sharply than rhetoric because they show where compassion was converted into revenue.
Forfeiture can follow assets across time.
A money judgment forfeiture is especially important in fugitive cases because defendants may no longer possess the original proceeds in identifiable form.
If money has been spent, transferred, hidden, invested, or moved through other people, federal authorities may still pursue substitute assets under applicable law when direct proceeds cannot be recovered.
This creates long-term exposure because forfeiture is not limited to the moment of sentencing, and authorities can continue investigating assets after judgment.
For a fugitive, every bank account, property interest, business relationship, nominee arrangement, and suspicious transfer may become part of future recovery efforts.
Marasigan may be physically absent, but the forfeiture judgment keeps the financial investigation alive.
Restitution collection may continue for years.
Restitution in major federal fraud cases can remain active long after sentencing because collection depends on available assets, future income, settlements, recoveries, and enforcement actions.
A fugitive defendant complicates collection because authorities may have to work across borders, trace accounts, identify property, and determine whether assets are held directly or through others.
However, fugitive status does not erase financial obligations, and enforcement can continue even when the defendant is not yet in custody.
The court’s judgment gives the government a formal basis to pursue repayment, and the public’s desire for notice increases pressure on anyone who may assist, conceal, employ, house, or financially support the fugitive.
The prison sentence punishes the person, but restitution keeps attention on the victims.
The financial orders reinforce the FBI manhunt.
Marasigan’s wanted status is not only about bringing him to prison because the financial judgments give authorities additional reasons to locate him, identify assets, and determine whether proceeds remain recoverable.
A fugitive with outstanding restitution and forfeiture obligations is not merely avoiding custody, since he may also be obstructing financial accountability for a charity fraud scheme.
The FBI’s public effort increases the likelihood that people with information about his location, contacts, lifestyle, or assets may come forward.
Financial fugitives often depend on ordinary support networks, including housing, travel assistance, medical care, banking access, employment, family help, or informal financial channels.
Each one of those support points can become an enforcement lead when a public reward and multimillion-dollar judgment exist.
The case shows why charity records matter.
Charity fraud often survives because patrons can see the event but cannot see the accounts, meaning they trust signs, slogans, organizational names, and public claims without reviewing the financial trail.
In the Guam bingo case, the financial trail became the central evidence because prosecutors compared the stated purpose with gross proceeds, net proceeds, actual payments, bank records, and laundering activity.
The result was a criminal judgment showing that charitable branding cannot substitute for transparent accounting.
Legitimate charities should view the case as a warning that strong internal controls, independent oversight, donor reporting, and proper fund segregation are essential.
When a charitable mission involves vulnerable children, every dollar should be easier to trace, not easier to hide.
The forfeiture order sends a deterrent message.
A long prison sentence can deter future fraud, but forfeiture sends a different message because it says crime should not remain profitable even if the defendant serves time.
Financial criminals often calculate risk around the possibility of imprisonment, but they may also expect that hidden assets, family transfers, foreign accounts, or property holdings will survive the legal process.
A forfeiture judgment disrupts that calculation by allowing the government to pursue value connected to unlawful proceeds.
In Marasigan’s case, the nearly $6 million forfeiture order tells future fraud defendants that personal gain can remain vulnerable after conviction, sentencing, and even flight.
The government’s message is that the money trail does not end when the defendant disappears.
The fugitive factor may worsen practical exposure.
Marasigan’s absence does not protect him from financial consequences because it may increase scrutiny of anyone suspected of helping him move, hide, spend, transfer, or access funds.
People who assist a wanted fugitive may face legal and reputational risk, especially if they help conceal assets, support travel, provide false information, or obstruct lawful enforcement.
This is why fugitive status can make ordinary financial life more difficult, even for a person outside the jurisdiction where sentencing occurred.
A wanted person still needs housing, communication, medical care, money, transportation, documents, and trusted contacts, and each need can create traceable connections.
The judgment may be financial, but enforcement pressure spreads through every practical part of the fugitive’s life.
The case draws a boundary for lawful privacy.
There is a sharp distinction between lawful privacy planning and unlawful concealment because legitimate privacy protects people from harassment, stalking, public exposure, and security threats while remaining accurate with courts, banks, tax authorities, and law enforcement.
The Marasigan case falls on the opposite side of that boundary because the court imposed restitution and forfeiture after jury convictions connected to fraud, money laundering, illegal gambling, and false charitable representations.
For lawful clients seeking low-profile living, anonymous living strategies should remain grounded in compliance, secure communications, accurate records, and respect for legal judgments.
Financial privacy cannot be used to hide fraud proceeds, avoid restitution, defeat forfeiture, or obstruct a court sentence.
The case proves that secrecy protecting stolen charity money is not privacy because it is concealment.
Identity tools cannot defeat money judgments.
Marasigan’s reported dual citizenship and international ties may affect the practical manhunt, but they do not erase his restitution obligation, forfeiture judgment, prison sentence, or wanted status.
Legal identity tools can support lawful mobility, documentation continuity, family protection, and private residence planning when they are government-recognized, truthful, and reviewable.
For legitimate clients seeking compliant identity continuity, new legal identity planning must be used to strengthen lawful records rather than escape criminal judgments or disguise proceeds.
Courts and financial investigators do not treat alternate documents, foreign ties, or private addresses as shields against restitution and forfeiture.
A passport may move a person, but a federal money judgment can move through banks, property records, and enforcement channels.
The final lesson is that the bill came due.
Michael Lizaso Marasigan’s financial penalties show that the Guam charity bingo fraud case was not only about imprisonment, but also about forcing a reckoning over where the money went.
The court ordered more than $10.7 million in restitution to the Aloha Shriners and nearly $6 million in forfeiture against Marasigan because prosecutors proved that charitable bingo proceeds were diverted and laundered for personal gain.
Those orders reflect the financial reality behind the public betrayal, where patrons believed their money would help sick children travel for medical care, while millions allegedly moved away from the stated mission.
Marasigan remains a fugitive, but the money judgments remain fixed, public, and enforceable whenever assets, accounts, property, or proceeds are found.
In 2026, the Marasigan case stands as a warning that a fraudster can flee a courtroom, but cannot easily outrun restitution, forfeiture, and the financial trail left behind when charity money is converted into private gain.