FirstAlerts

Demasi Agrees to $25 Million Restitution; Charges Against 10 Others in Arizona Sober-Living Case Undecided

James Demasi pleaded guilty in 2023 and agreed to $25 million in restitution. Separate charges against 10 indicted people, including Vestine Mukarukundo, are unproven, and that case has not been resolved.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 5:41 p.m. ET

More on this incident

James Demasi has agreed to pay $25 million in restitution as part of a plea deal after pleading guilty in 2023 to fraudulent schemes and illegal control of an enterprise on behalf of New Life Wellness, according to FOX 10 Phoenix. Demasi ran Thomas Suites and owned New Life Wellness centers. In a separate set of allegations that has not been decided, investigators with the say 10 indicted people, including Vestine Mukarukundo, operated unlicensed sober-living homes and agreed to send 75 clients to a fake behavioral health facility in exchange for kickbacks of $300 per person each week, FOX 10 Phoenix reported. Those are accusations only. The matter involving the 10 indicted people is at the charging stage: an indictment is not a finding of guilt, no court has ruled on the allegations against Mukarukundo or the others named in it, and nothing in FOX 10 Phoenix's account indicates the case has reached a verdict, plea or any other resolution. Readers encountering this story later should not assume the charges were sustained. Since 2021, the has brought 188 indictments related to the sober living scheme, according to FOX 10 Phoenix. Victims' families said no trafficking, homicide, manslaughter, vulnerable adult abuse or drug charges have been brought in connection with sober living.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:37current

    First published.

  3. Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:41current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.