Hawaii Couple Remains Wanted Years After Mortgage Fraud Guilty Pleas

John Michael Dimitrion and Julieanne Baldueza Dimitrion remain publicly wanted after missing their July 2010 sentencing, following guilty pleas in a mortgage fraud scheme that persuaded financially distressed Oahu homeowners to surrender property through promises of financial recovery.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 5, 2026

More than sixteen years after a scheduled sentencing in Honolulu, John Michael Dimitrion and Julieanne Baldueza Dimitrion remain the subjects of active FBI wanted notices in a case involving homeowners who lost their properties after accepting fraudulent promises of assistance.

The couple pleaded guilty in April 2009, but failed to appear for sentencing on July 6, 2010, according to the bureau, turning a prosecution that had reached admissions of guilt into a prolonged effort to bring both defendants back before authorities.

Their continued inclusion on the FBI’s Most Wanted Fraudsters list has renewed attention to the case, while the public materials reviewed do not establish a recent arrest, surrender or confirmed present location for either member of the couple.

The underlying harm remains central to that appeal: families already facing financial distress relinquished their homes under arrangements presented as a route toward improvement, only for money intended for their benefit to support the operators’ personal spending, according to authorities.

Guilty Pleas Preceded the Fugitive Search

The FBI’s case summary identifies a February 2009 indictment followed by guilty pleas in April, establishing that the couple’s admissions came more than a year before the sentencing hearing they ultimately failed to attend in federal court.

That sequence distinguishes the Dimitrions from defendants who disappear before an initial criminal charge or before a trial, because their mortgage fraud case had already advanced beyond allegations to guilty pleas when the search for them began.

The published notices identify failure to appear as associated with mortgage fraud, while the mortgage scheme and the missed sentencing remain separate parts of the history rather than a single event that occurred when the bureau later publicized the case.

The materials reviewed do not establish a subsequently imposed prison term or a completed resolution of the failure-to-appear matters, so the documented pleas should not be combined with an invented sentence or an assumption about later proceedings.

Homeowners Were Promised Financial Relief

According to the bureau, the Dimitrions used their companies to persuade distressed homeowners to relinquish their properties, representing that proceeds from home sales would be invested in ways that improved the families’ financial position rather than depleted it.

The FBI says the couple instead used victims’ money to support lavish lifestyles, with multiple Oahu families losing their homes, connecting the fraud to the disposition of sale proceeds and the consequences for people seeking relief.

The deception described in that account involved more than a disappointing return on an investment, because the promised handling of proceeds formed part of the explanation used to persuade homeowners to surrender an asset they were struggling to retain.

Analytically, the combination was especially consequential: the homeowners were asked to trust an intermediary with both a property transaction and the future use of its proceeds, concentrating important decisions about housing and money within the same proposed arrangement.

Early Court Reporting Described the Transaction Structure

Contemporaneous reporting by The Honolulu Advertiser identified John as the founder and chief executive of Mortgage Alliance and Julieanne as its chief financial officer, describing allegations concerning transactions between 2005 and 2007 and approximately $1.3 million in new loans.

The February 2009 account, published before their guilty pleas, described arrangements in which homeowners were told a sale to a third-party investor would be temporary and that they could remain in the property while eventually regaining title.

That reporting also described allegations that larger loans and accounts presented as escrow arrangements were used to redirect money, followed by defaults and eviction proceedings, providing historical detail about the prosecution’s account rather than a new development in the search.

Because those details came from reporting at the charging stage, they should retain that attribution and should not be treated as a complete description of every fact admitted in the later pleas without reviewing the underlying plea agreements.

The Loan Figure Is Not a Recovery Total

The approximately $1.3 million figure in the early reporting concerned newly obtained loans, which means it should not automatically be described as the couple’s personal profit, a final restitution judgment or the amount of money recovered for homeowners.

A mortgage transaction can involve outstanding debt, new borrowing, fees, sale proceeds and remaining equity, so identifying which financial measure a number represents is necessary before using it to characterize the loss suffered by any particular family.

The current public-facing summaries establish that multiple families lost homes but do not provide a complete accounting of restitution, property recovery, or subsequent compensation, leaving those financial outcomes unconfirmed in the materials reviewed for this article.

That limitation does not diminish the documented harm, but it prevents a numerical shorthand from replacing the separate questions of what was borrowed, what was diverted, what families lost, and what authorities may eventually have recovered.

July 2010 Marked the Start of the Public Manhunt

In its initial July 8, 2010 appeal, the FBI reported that witnesses last saw the couple at church services at the Mililani Recreation Center on the evening of July 2, four days before the scheduled sentencing.

The same announcement said they had abandoned their car and that investigators had no record of an airplane departure from Oahu, describing the evidence available at the start of the search rather than a final conclusion about their movements.

Warrants followed their failure to attend the July 6 hearing, and the bureau requested public assistance locating them, making that missed court appearance the documented turning point between the mortgage prosecution and the fugitive investigation that followed.

The church sighting establishes a reported place and time, but it does not show that the congregation or any person present knew of a departure plan, and association with the venue should not be treated as evidence of assistance.

Later Mainland Leads Remain Historical

An archived FBI announcement from July 2012 stated that the couple had been hiding in Alabama in 2011 and discussed suspected assistance connected with a sovereign-citizen group, adding a mainland dimension to the bureau’s public account at that time.

The same announcement said their current whereabouts were unknown, which limits how the Alabama information should be used today and prevents an old investigative lead from being presented as confirmation of where either person lives in September 2026.

The suspected group connection was an investigative assessment, and the reviewed material does not establish a conviction against a named helper or prove that every person associated with any such organization participated in concealing the Dimitrions.

Taken together, the early island account and the later mainland statement show how publicly described leads developed over time, while providing no verified basis to claim that the couple currently resides abroad or follows a particular travel pattern.

A New Wanted List Revived Local Attention

Hawaii News Now reported in June 2026 that the Dimitrions were among the people with Hawaii connections included in the FBI’s newly launched Most Wanted Fraudsters initiative, returning the longstanding case to local coverage after years without a confirmed capture.

The report included comments from retired FBI special agent Tom Simon, who pursued the couple, describing the difficulty of the unresolved investigation and welcoming the added visibility from their placement in the new national campaign.

That renewed publicity is a current development in an older prosecution, not evidence that the guilty pleas, property transactions, or original warrants date from 2026, a distinction that matters when archived cases receive fresh national attention.

The dedicated fraudsters list is separate from the FBI’s traditional Ten Most Wanted Fugitives program, so describing the Dimitrions as members of the latter would incorrectly merge two publicity categories that serve different bureau initiatives.

Each Notice Advertises a Conditional Reward

The current notices separately offer up to $150,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of John Michael Dimitrion and Julieanne Baldueza Dimitrion, presenting individual reward terms even though the agency describes their mortgage case together.

Those offers should not be rewritten as a guaranteed combined payment for locating the couple, because each notice uses conditional language and the reviewed information does not provide a detailed formula governing eligibility, competing tips or the eventual award.

The original July 2010 public appeal advertised a much smaller reward of up to $1,000, making the difference between archived and current notices especially relevant for readers who encounter older stories while researching the continuing search.

The wording concerning arrest and conviction does not erase the documented mortgage fraud guilty pleas, and it should not be interpreted as evidence that those admissions remain unmade or that every later legal issue has already been adjudicated.

A Longstanding Description Is Not a Current Sighting

The FBI publishes photographs, identifying details and aliases to assist recognition, including John M. Dimitrion and John Dela Cruz for John, while Julieanne’s notice includes a spacing variation of her name as Julie Anne Baldueza Dimitrion.

Those identifiers are intended to help assess possible matches, but the long interval since the couple’s disappearance means readers should not treat an old photograph, listed weight or earlier lifestyle description as proof of someone’s appearance or circumstances today.

The bureau’s reference to the Mililani area supplies a historical Hawaii connection, while the archived mainland information reflects a different stage of the investigation, so neither should be converted into an independently verified present residential address.

A person sharing a listed name or resembling a photograph is not thereby established to be one of the fugitives, making careful verification essential before a possible lead becomes a public accusation directed at an unrelated individual.

The Scheme Illustrates the Stakes of Foreclosure Promises

As an analytical lesson from the documented case, a promise to rescue a distressed homeowner can involve several separate commitments, including stopping financial deterioration, handling property transfers, and preserving the value that remains after existing obligations are addressed.

A homeowner’s willingness to sign transaction documents does not answer whether material promises were truthful, which is why the circumstances surrounding consent and the subsequent handling of money matter alongside the existence of signatures on an agreement.

Likewise, a promise that ownership will eventually be restored requires its own support, because the immediate legal effect of a transfer and an assurance about a future transaction are different propositions with different consequences for the household.

The Dimitrion account underscores that distinction without establishing that every foreclosure-assistance arrangement is fraudulent, keeping the focus on the admitted scheme and the mismatch between the benefit promised to homeowners and the use of money described by authorities.

Personal Spending Explains the Diversion of Proceeds

The FBI’s summary connects the victims’ money with the couple’s personal lifestyle, while local reporting described expensive vehicles, designer goods and a prominent residence, details that drew attention because families had entrusted them with proceeds intended for financial relief.

Such descriptions matter because of their connection to the funds, not because expensive possessions or an affluent appearance alone establish criminal conduct, and the public record should not be stretched into a complete inventory of assets currently held.

Money spent years earlier also should not automatically be treated as financing available throughout the fugitive period, because proving that connection would require evidence tracing later resources rather than assuming the original proceeds remained intact and accessible.

For the affected families, the central question is what happened to the money and housing they relinquished, with lifestyle details providing context only insofar as they help explain the diversion already described in the official case history.

Capture Would Not Automatically Restore Lost Homes

An arrest or surrender would represent a major development by bringing a wanted defendant before authorities, but it would not by itself establish that a family had recovered its home, received compensation or collected money under any applicable order.

Those outcomes would depend on property records, available assets and the relevant proceedings, none of which can be reconstructed completely from the concise summaries published to support a fugitive search and solicit information from members of the public.

The distinction matters after such a long interval, because a successful apprehension would address the outstanding custody issue while leaving the separate financial history to be documented through verified records rather than inferred from the arrest announcement.

The current record therefore supports two continuing public interests: completing the criminal proceedings associated with the couple’s absence and accurately accounting for the consequences of a scheme that authorities say cost multiple Oahu families their homes.

International Documentation Is a Separate Subject

For readers researching lawful citizenship arrangements, Amicus International Consulting’s second-passport information concerns a separate administrative subject, and nothing in the reviewed Dimitrion case materials establishes that a second citizenship or a lawful passport application explains their continuing absence.

The company’s tax identification information likewise addresses documentation used in international administration, while the issues here concern mortgage transactions, admitted fraud, and outstanding warrants that cannot be resolved simply by possessing another tax number or identity document.

The reviewed sources provide no evidence connecting Amicus International Consulting or its services with the couple, their companies or the homeowners’ losses, and references to those services should not be understood as descriptions of arrangements used in this case.

The Search Remains Open More Than Sixteen Years Later

The FBI continues to invite information through its established reporting channels, including the national tipline at 1-800-225-5324, while investigators remain responsible for checking identities, assessing leads and determining whether reported information can support lawful action against a wanted person.

A confirmed apprehension or surrender would substantially change the public account, but the latest reviewed notices reflect an ongoing search rather than a new arrest, a verified overseas detention, or a completed return to court for sentencing.

The case’s defining chronology remains intact: the Dimitrions pleaded guilty in 2009, missed sentencing in July 2010 and remain publicly wanted in September 2026, while the families whose homes were lost remain central to the reason authorities continue seeking them.