What Jeffrey Epstein’s Final Trust Reveals — and What It Does Not

The recent release of millions of pages of investigative material by the Justice Department has revived unanswered questions about the private life and estate of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier whose death in federal custody in 2019 ended one criminal case but not the scrutiny surrounding him.

Among the newly disclosed records is a 32-page trust agreement, known as the 1953 Trust, executed on Aug. 8, 2019, two days before Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan detention center.

The document identifies more than 40 potential beneficiaries and directs an unusually large share of Epstein’s remaining assets to Karyna Shuliak, described in court filings as his last known girlfriend.

Ms. Shuliak, a Belarusian national now 36, entered Epstein’s circle around 2009 or 2010, when she was in her early 20s and studying dentistry in the United States.

Court records show that Epstein paid for her education. Under the terms of the trust, she was designated to receive assets valued at roughly $100 million, including $50 million in cash or equivalent funds, a $50 million annuity, several properties such as Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, his Paris apartment, a ranch in New Mexico and his private islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands, along with jewelry, including a 33-carat diamond ring that Epstein characterized as given in contemplation of marriage.

The scale of that provision far exceeds what was allocated to others named in the trust, including Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, and longtime associates.

Its size and structure have prompted renewed scrutiny, particularly after investigators uncovered a separate item in the same tranche of files: a series of emails from September 2011 that appear to have been sent by Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York.

In one message, the sender relayed congratulations for the birth of a baby boy, noting that the news had come from the Duke, widely understood to be Prince Andrew, her former husband. If such a child were born at that time, he or she would now be about 15.

There is no public evidence that Epstein ever had children. No birth records or official acknowledgments have surfaced, and Mark Epstein has repeatedly said that his brother had no offspring. Probate proceedings have similarly recognized no heirs beyond the trust’s beneficiaries and a number of unsubstantiated claims.

Still, the 2011 email, when viewed alongside Epstein’s well-documented efforts to shield his finances and personal affairs through offshore accounts, secluded properties, and strict controls on information, has fueled speculation that a dependent could have been concealed from public view.

Ms. Shuliak’s relationship with Epstein aligns with that period. A birth handled privately, possibly outside the United States or under sealed records, could help explain the absence of any trace.

Under that interpretation, the generosity of the 1953 Trust might be read not only as a reflection of their relationship but also as long-term financial protection connected to an unacknowledged child, perhaps living quietly abroad, possibly with relatives in Belarus.

Such conclusions remain unproven. The Justice Department files offer no direct evidence that Epstein fathered a child with Ms. Shuliak or with anyone else. Estate distributions have been complicated by settlements with victims, taxes, legal fees, and continuing litigation, making it unclear how much any beneficiary ultimately received.

Yet the convergence of the email, the timing of Ms. Shuliak’s involvement with Epstein, and the extraordinary scale of her inheritance leaves an unresolved question in a story already marked by secrecy and partial disclosure. As with much of Epstein’s life, definitive answers remain elusive.