Jeffrey Epstein’s death in a New York jail cell in August 2019 has been officially and repeatedly certified as suicide. Yet if the criminal case ended with his body on a prison floor, the financial case did not. The money trail he left behind — intricate, secretive and strategically positioned — continues to provoke legal disputes, civil settlements and moral outrage years later.
Two days before he was found hanging in his cell, Epstein executed a dramatic restructuring of his fortune. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, he signed documents transferring the bulk of his wealth — estimated between 577 and 630 million dollars — into a newly formed vehicle known as the “1953 Trust.” The effect was immediate and profound: assets that might otherwise have been directly exposed to claims were shifted into a private trust structure in a jurisdiction known for its strong asset-protection laws.
The criminal case stopped. The civil struggle and multiple lawsuits over the fortune did not.
A Deathbed Plan in the Virgin Islands
On 8 August 2019 — just 48 hours before his death — Epstein signed the papers that poured his wealth into the 1953 Trust. The timing alone has ensured that the move remains controversial. A high-profile inmate facing federal sex-trafficking charges and intense global scrutiny, he had little time and diminishing options. Yet in those final hours, he managed to consolidate properties, securities, cash and corporate interests under a private trust structure.
The trustees and co-executors were long-time confidants: lawyer Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. On paper, the mechanism was straightforward — assets into trust; trustees in charge; beneficiaries named. In practice, it created a labyrinth. Victims, tax authorities and the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands would now have to negotiate, litigate or settle within the framework of trust law rather than simply pursue assets in probate.
Since then, the estate has been steadily reduced by tax demands, legal fees, government settlements and a compensation programme for victims that has paid out well over 150 million dollars. Additional class-action settlements, including a reported 35-million-dollar agreement in 2026, have further chipped away at what once appeared to be an impregnable fortune.
Yet the architecture of the 1953 Trust remains intact.
Karyna Shuliak and Jeffrey Epstein in New York, April 2014.
The Woman at the Centre: Karyna Shuliak
At the heart of the trust’s beneficiary structure stands a relatively obscure figure: Karyna Shuliak, a Belarusian-born dentist identified in estate documents as Epstein’s long-time girlfriend and principal beneficiary.
Records indicate that their relationship began around 2012. Epstein reportedly assisted her relocation to the United States and brought her into his closely guarded personal world. Newly surfaced trust and Justice Department filings underscore her proximity to him in his final days. His last known phone call from jail was reportedly to her. A lawyer connected to her was among the final visitors recorded before his death.
Under the 1953 Trust, Shuliak was positioned to receive what can only be described as an extraordinary package: 100 million dollars in value, including a 50-million-dollar annuity and an additional 50 million dollars in immediate benefit. The trust documents also referenced key real-estate interests and a 33-carat diamond engagement ring. In a handwritten note, Epstein recorded having given her 48 loose diamonds — to remain hers if their contemplated marriage did not occur and he died first.
Despite this proximity and financial prominence, there is no public charging document naming her as a defendant in the trafficking operation. Her name appears in estate and investigative records as heir and confidante, not as an accused party. Legally, her entitlement remains subordinate to creditor claims, victim compensation and tax obligations. Morally and publicly, her position remains contentious.
Who Stood to Inherit
The trust papers reveal a hierarchy of intended beneficiaries that extended beyond Shuliak. Among those named or reported in estate disclosures:
Karyna Shuliak: 100 million dollars, plus diamonds, engagement ring and property interests.
Darren Indyke (lawyer): 50 million dollars.
Richard Kahn (accountant): 25 million dollars.
Mark Epstein (brother): 10 million dollars.
Ghislaine Maxwell: 10 million dollars.
Approximately 40 additional beneficiaries: Between roughly 3 and 10 million dollars each, some names redacted.
Estate representatives have consistently emphasised that these allocations are contingent. No beneficiary can receive funds until all legitimate claims — from survivors, creditors and tax authorities — are satisfied in full. The U.S. Virgin Islands government itself sued the estate under civil racketeering theories, resulting in major settlements.
In effect, the trust created expectations on paper; the courts and negotiated settlements determine the reality.
The Compensation Programme and Its Limits
One of the most significant developments after Epstein’s death was the creation of a victims’ compensation programme. Designed to avoid protracted courtroom battles, it allowed survivors to submit claims confidentially and receive awards funded by the estate.
By 2022, more than 150 million dollars had reportedly been distributed. Hundreds of claims were processed. Additional settlements in subsequent years have further reduced estate assets. Yet the process has also drawn scrutiny — over transparency, valuation methodology and the pace at which funds have been disbursed.
The broader legal landscape includes continuing litigation, regulatory scrutiny and negotiated agreements. While the compensation mechanism has delivered tangible relief to many survivors, it has not extinguished public debate over whether the trust structure delayed or complicated justice.
Three Unsettled Questions
From a public-interest standpoint, the case now revolves around three enduring questions.
First: Should an accused offender facing serious federal charges be able, in the final days of his life, to relocate hundreds of millions of dollars into a private trust in a protective jurisdiction, thereby complicating restitution for alleged victims? The legality of the act is one matter; its fairness is another.
Second: What responsibilities, if any, attach to a principal beneficiary who was central to the decedent’s personal life during the period under scrutiny? While no criminal allegations have been formally lodged against Shuliak, public expectation often extends beyond prosecutorial thresholds. Cooperation with financial tracing and transparency initiatives may be legally optional but socially consequential.
Third: What precedent does this episode set? Asset-protection trusts are legitimate financial instruments. Yet when deployed on the eve of potential conviction, they risk appearing as tools for strategic evasion. Future high-profile defendants may view last-minute estate planning as a tactical shield — forcing survivors into years of civil litigation before accessing funds.
Legal Engineering or Final Insult?
Nearly seven years after his death, the official record remains unchanged: suicide in federal custody. What endures, however, is the elaborate financial blueprint executed in the final 48 hours.
The 1953 Trust did not prevent compensation to survivors. It did not shield the estate entirely from government claims. But it did transform what might have been a straightforward probate process into a prolonged and technically complex legal saga.
Whether history ultimately judges that manoeuvre as sophisticated estate planning or as a calculated attempt to place wealth beyond immediate reach will depend on the final accounting. If the majority of the fortune is ultimately directed to survivors and legitimate claimants, the trust may be remembered as an ultimately unsuccessful shield. If substantial assets flow primarily to the inner circle Epstein named, the episode will be remembered differently.
In the end, the criminal case closed with a death certificate. The financial case continues to write its own verdict — line by line, settlement by settlement, diamond by diamond.