Federal authorities are seeking information leading to Michael Lizaso Marasigan’s arrest and conviction after he failed to return from court-approved medical travel to the Philippines and stopped communicating with the court in June 2025.
WASHINGTON, DC, September 10, 2026 — The FBI is offering a reward of up to $150,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Michael Lizaso Marasigan, the Guam bingo fraud defendant whose authorized medical trip became an unresolved fugitive case.
The FBI’s official wanted poster states that Marasigan received court permission to travel to the Philippines for medical reasons, failed to return when required, and stopped communicating with the court in June 2025.
A federal arrest warrant followed on June 25, 2025, in the District of Guam for violating release conditions, placing the failure to return alongside an underlying criminal case that had already produced guilty verdicts the previous month.
The reward brings a practical focus to the continuing search: authorities are asking people with relevant information to come forward, while the court record supplies the Background explaining why this particular defendant remains the subject of public attention.
What the Reward Offer Actually Says
The phrase “up to” is central to understanding the announcement, because it identifies a maximum potential reward rather than promising that anyone who recognizes a photograph or submits information will automatically receive the full advertised amount.
The stated condition also matters, since the offer concerns information leading to arrest and conviction, a formulation readers should preserve rather than shorten into a guaranteed payment for reporting an unverified sighting or repeating an existing account.
Someone considering providing information should therefore direct questions about eligibility and payment to the FBI, which can explain the applicable terms, rather than relying on a news headline or a private intermediary to interpret the offer.
A Public Appeal for Useful Information
The appeal is best understood as an invitation to share relevant knowledge with investigators, whose responsibility is to assess what they receive, determine whether they can corroborate it, and decide what further action the information may justify.
A person does not need to turn a possible observation into a complete theory of the case before reporting it, but should make clear which details were personally observed and which came from another source.
Medical Travel Preceded the Failure to Return
The travel authorization is an important part of the chronology because the FBI describes an approved departure for medical reasons, followed by a failure to return and a breakdown in communication with the court afterward.
That sequence should not be rewritten as an allegation that every aspect of the original journey was unauthorized, nor should the medical explanation be treated as fabricated when the available account does not establish that conclusion.
The distinction allows readers to understand the conduct identified in the wanted notice without speculating about private health information, the merits of the original application or what the court knew when it permitted the trip.
Permission and Compliance Are Different Questions
The broader issue illustrated by the chronology is that permission for a particular activity and compliance with the conditions attached to that permission are separate matters, even when they concern the same journey and the same defendant.
For anyone facing court supervision, raise questions about travel, return dates, or changing circumstances with counsel through the appropriate process, because assumptions about what an earlier authorization permits can leave consequential issues unresolved.
The Bingo Case Produced a Lengthy Prison Sentence
Marasigan was sentenced in absentia on May 18, 2026, to 262 months in federal prison, equivalent to 21 years and 10 months, with the official account also recording substantial financial orders connected to the underlying charity fraud case.
Those orders included $10,750,804 in joint and several restitution to the Aloha Shriners and a $5,871,493 forfeiture money Judgment, figures that describe different components of the sentence and should be kept distinct when explaining its financial consequences.
The sentencing record makes clear why the story extends beyond a missed return date, because the search concerns a convicted defendant with a substantial prison term whose absence leaves the custody component of accountability unresolved.
A Sentence and Physical Custody Are Separate Milestones
A sentencing announcement tells the public what punishment a court imposed. At the same time, confirmation of custody answers a different question, and readers should avoid assuming that completion of the first milestone necessarily establishes the second.
That distinction helps explain why a case can keep generating wanted notices and public appeals after sentencing, without requiring the public to assume the underlying prosecution has disappeared or the court’s Judgment has become irrelevant.
Charitable Promises Were Central to the Underlying Conduct
The official account describes a bingo operation that generated about $34 million in proceeds, with about $10.75 million diverted from the charitable purpose of transporting children to Hawaii for medical care and directed toward private benefit.
Those figures place the case within a broader discussion of financial accountability, particularly where members of the public participate because they believe an organization’s activities will support people facing serious needs rather than enrich those controlling the money.
A charitable appeal depends on a relationship between the promise made and the benefit delivered, so the consequences of deception can include damaged confidence as well as the financial loss addressed in a criminal proceeding.
The Human Purpose Should Remain Visible
The reward amount may dominate a headline, but it should not eclipse the reason the underlying conduct matters, especially when the promised use of the funds involved helping children obtain medical treatment away from home.
Keeping that purpose visible allows readers to understand the case as an accountability issue rather than merely a contest over locating a fugitive, while avoiding unsupported claims about particular patients or treatments that the available record does not identify.
Reported Manila Appearance Added to Public Interest
In August, Hawaii News Now reported that Pacific Daily News staff had photographed Marasigan in Manila on March 15, describing an image in which he appeared to be leaving a café while wearing a black shirt.
The report also included a statement from the Honolulu FBI confirming that he remained wanted and that the bureau continued seeking public information, along with reactions expressing anger over the apparent freedom of a convicted charity fraud defendant.
Retired FBI special agent Tom Simon described the possible investigative value of an authentic, recent photograph, emphasizing the usefulness of identifying a city while making his assessment conditional on the image’s legitimacy and timing.
An Earlier Sighting Does Not Establish Today’s Location
The reported photograph dates to a specific time, and its later publication does not establish that Marasigan remains in the same neighborhood or city, so any claim about his current address depends on additional, independently verified information.
It also does not establish an arrest or a completed return arrangement, so the sighting should be understood as part of the public Background to the search rather than confirmation that the custody question has been resolved.
How Members of the Public Can Respond
The FBI poster directs people with information to its toll-free line, 1-800-225-5324, a local FBI office or the nearest American embassy or consulate. Also, it identifies the bureau’s online tip system as an available reporting channel.
When preparing a report, describe the observation plainly, distinguish direct knowledge from inference, and explain any uncertainty, allowing investigators to evaluate the information without separating facts from added speculation.
Providing information does not require confronting someone, following them, or publishing an accusation online, and anyone who believes they recognize the wanted individual should leave identification and any enforcement response to the responsible authorities.
Accuracy Is More Useful Than Added Certainty
For example, a person who remembers an approximate date should identify it as approximate, because turning an uncertain recollection into an exact claim can create confusion rather than improve the quality of the information being shared.
Likewise, someone passing along a report received from another person should describe that source relationship clearly, instead of presenting the information as a personal observation that can later be confirmed through their own independent recollection.
Why the Reward Is Not a Recovery Fund
The reward announcement and the financial orders in the criminal case address different objectives, so readers should not assume that the advertised payment represents money available to charitable beneficiaries or a portion of restitution already collected.
A potential payment for useful information relates to assistance with the search. In contrast, the court’s financial orders concern the consequences of the underlying conduct, and neither figure alone establishes how much money has actually been recovered.
That difference matters for people following the case because of its charitable impact, since announcing a large sum can otherwise create an impression of financial progress that the reward itself does not demonstrate.
Financial Accountability Requires Its Own Updates
A meaningful report about recovery would need information specifically addressing collection or distribution, just as a meaningful report about custody would need confirmation of an arrest, rather than relying on the continued existence of a public reward.
Keeping those questions separate gives the public a clearer way to assess developments. It prevents a single headline figure from standing in for several outcomes that may occur at different times or remain unresolved.
The Overseas Dimension Raises Further Questions
The Philippines connection naturally prompts questions about international cooperation and possible surrender proceedings. Still, the reward notice itself does not establish that a particular legal process has reached a specific stage or that a return date exists.
General Background is available through Amicus International Consulting’s Extradition and INTERPOL information. However, a service overview cannot establish what either government has requested, approved, or scheduled in an individual case without supporting case information.
Readers should therefore distinguish the effort to obtain location information from later legal or diplomatic developments, avoiding the assumption that an advertised reward automatically answers every question about what happens after a person is found.
An Official Notice Has a Defined Purpose
The wanted poster communicates the identity of the person sought, the stated basis for the search and the ways the public can provide information. Still, it should not be read as a complete account of every investigative development.
Its continued availability also does not reveal how many tips have been received or whether a particular lead has proved useful, leaving those questions open unless authorities or reliable reporting supply additional information.
Publicity Should Support Careful Identification
A widely shared reward notice can reach people unfamiliar with the original prosecution, making accurate names and attribution especially important when readers encounter a photograph or a summary separated from the fuller history of the case.
Resemblance alone should not become a public accusation, and information about unrelated individuals should not be circulated merely because they share a surname, appear similar in an image, or have some connection to Guam or the Philippines.
Avoiding Unfounded Claims About Other People
Nothing in the reward announcement justifies assuming that a relative, acquaintance, business employee, or person pictured nearby is knowingly assisting the fugitive, because such a claim would require evidence beyond an association or shared location.
The practical value of public participation lies in communicating relevant observations through appropriate channels, while leaving conclusions about identity, knowledge, and possible involvement to a process that can examine the available supporting facts.
Individual Legal Concerns Require Individual Advice
For readers facing their own international legal difficulties, another person’s fugitive case cannot determine their options, since meaningful advice depends on the actual court orders, procedural history, and personal circumstances involved in their situation.
Amicus International Consulting offers confidential case assessments, with the appropriate scope of assistance depending on the information provided and the questions requiring professional review, rather than conclusions drawn solely from another defendant’s public record.
Anyone seeking advice should organize relevant documents and clearly identify unresolved questions, allowing the assessment to focus on facts rather than assumptions about what a passport, travel approval, or overseas connection might mean.
Reliable Updates Keep the Timeline Clear
As the case continues, new coverage should explain whether it is describing the original conviction, the later warrant, the sentence, or a genuinely new development, so readers can follow the sequence without confusing a repeated Background detail with a change in the defendant’s status, particularly when articles circulate across different countries and audiences who may be encountering the underlying Guam prosecution for the very first time online.
A fresh publication date can make familiar information appear new. Still, the useful question is what has changed since the previous report, whether that change has been independently confirmed, and how it affects the unresolved search or the court’s existing orders.
The Public Appeal Remains Focused on Information
The immediate request remains straightforward: people with relevant knowledge should contact the FBI through its designated channels, while questions about any reward payment should be addressed directly to the agency responsible for the published offer.
The announcement’s ultimate significance will depend on whether reliable information leads to a confirmed enforcement outcome, bringing the search closer to resolution while preserving the accuracy and accountability the underlying case demands.
