Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
- The November 12, 2013 arrival email records Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem telling Jeffrey Epstein that two women described as Ukrainian and Moldavian had arrived. He compared their appearance with a photograph. The exchange reports an arrival, but does not identify the location, ages, organizer, payment or purpose of the visit
- The December 10, 2013 Tokyo email contains Sulayem’s account of trying a massage and a menu describing sexual services. This is his own report about a commercial service, not evidence that Epstein arranged it or that the providers were minors
- The June 2017 Rixos correspondence shows Sulayem asking a hotel owner to provide training for a woman he described as Epstein’s personal masseuse. The arrangement expanded to two trainees, with flights, accommodation and airport transport. A July 17 response from Rixos reports successful training, taking this episode beyond an unfulfilled proposal
- The island correspondence includes Sulayem’s June 2013 thanks for a visit, as well as a proposed aircraft trial. Other files concern island transport and spa design. Each has a different evidentiary status, and the existence of a plan does not establish that it was carried out
- The 2019 Priscilla Doe complaint alleges that Epstein invoked powerful connections to maintain control and that Doe met someone he called the Sultan of Dubai. It does not identify that person as one of the unnamed friends she separately accused of abusing her
- DP World confirmed Sulayem’s resignation in February 2026. Reporting connects the departure to the released correspondence, while later reporting records his leadership role at MMC Ports. The records reviewed through October 1, 2026 do not establish an Epstein related criminal charge or judicial finding against him
Evidence comparison chart
| Record | What it supports | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 island planning and a massage request | Correspondence about visiting Epstein’s island; a message asking when Sulayem wanted a New York massage | A reliable date for the top massage message, a completed massage or its nature |
| June 2013 island thanks | Sulayem’s account of having enjoyed a visit; discussion of a proposed aircraft trial | The identities or experiences of other visitors, or a completed aircraft agreement |
| November 2013 women’s arrival | Sulayem’s report that two women arrived and his comments on their appearance | Their ages, the location, who arranged travel or whether sexual activity occurred |
| December 2013 Tokyo massage | Sulayem’s reported use of a service advertised with sexual acts | An independent service receipt, Epstein’s involvement in arranging it or abuse of a minor |
| September 2015 sexual account | Sulayem’s claim about a sexual relationship with a university student | Her own account, her age or the circumstances of consent |
| June 2017 Rixos request | A direct referral, a request for broad training and hotel staff acceptance of coordination | By itself, travel, attendance or completion |
| June 2017 tickets and hotel confirmation | Issued itinerary and specific accommodation and training arrangements | Actual boarding, the final bill or an exact attendance record |
| June and July 2017 payment and refund | Hotel payment acknowledgment, a shortened booking and receipt of a refund | An exact net trip cost without the final invoice and payment slip |
| July 2017 training response | A Rixos representative’s contemporaneous report that two women completed successful training | Their complete personal experience, the full curriculum or a sexual purpose |
| Priscilla Doe’s complaint | Her allegation about Epstein’s use of influential contacts and meeting the person described as Sultan of Dubai | An allegation in that complaint that Sulayem sexually abused her |
The person behind the name
The February 2006 correspondence filed in the Virgin Islands case against JPMorgan uses the informal description Sultan of Dubai and then supplies Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem’s full name and business positions while arranging a meeting with Jes Staley. It is a useful identification record. Sultan is his given name; the correspondence is about a businessman rather than the holder of a royal title.
DP World’s February 2026 announcement identifies Sulayem as its departing chairman and group chief executive. The May 2011 email chain also carries his DPW chairman signature. These records connect the correspondent with the corporate executive, while preserving an important limit: a business position does not establish knowledge of or participation in Epstein’s crimes.
The arrangement record is varied. Some messages concern introductions, island visits and business access. Others contain sexualized descriptions or an explicit commercial massage menu. The Rixos sequence is unusually detailed because it preserves a referral, staff questions, travel planning, a hotel confirmation and a later report of successful training. Those categories should not be collapsed into a single claim that every interaction was a sexual arrangement.
Early island plans and the undated New York massage request
The chain preserved in EFTA02334646 contains messages dated August 17, August 30 and September 8, 2005 about an island visit. Sulayem proposed dates in September. A redacted intermediary relayed Epstein’s suggestion that they could go after the Clinton Forum. Sulayem later asked for an approximate departure date and time so that he could arrange New York meetings around it. The messages establish planning and the flexibility he offered, not completed travel on those particular dates.
The top message in the same file asks what time Sulayem would like a massage that day in New York, describing the question as coming from Epstein. Its exported date is January 1 in the year 4501, which is plainly unusable. The dated material quoted below it does not supply a reliable date for the top message. The file therefore supports the existence of a scheduling request, but not a precisely dated 2005 massage appointment.
Nothing in that massage request identifies a provider, age, payment or sexual service. There is also no completion account in the file. The explicitly sexual Tokyo menu sent eight years later concerns a separate service in a different setting.
Introductions and a reported unsuccessful approach
Reuters’ February 18, 2026 review describes a November 9, 2007 exchange about a woman Epstein helped connect with Sulayem. According to the report, Sulayem described an unsuccessful sexual approach. Drop Site’s published screenshot preserves an exchange about finally meeting in New York after months of contact, with a mismatch between her business expectations and his sexual interest. The outlet describes its source as separately leaked correspondence. The screenshot corroborates the reported wording without independently establishing forensic authenticity. No matching EFTA identifier was verified, and the explicit statement that sex did not occur remains attributed to Reuters.
The May 2011 introduction chain records Sulayem asking Epstein for the email address of an Australian woman. Epstein had placed Katherine Keating in the correspondence. The following messages clarify that her email was in the heading and preserve Keating’s separate replies to Epstein about social plans and a conference. The chain documents a contact introduction. It supplies no sexual proposition, payment or allegation against Keating.
Epstein’s September 3, 2011 message says an unnamed mutual acquaintance from Djibouti had cancelled women who were expected to come. It does not say Sulayem recruited them, establish their ages or identify the reason for cancellation. This is a reported cancelled plan by a third person, not evidence that the proposed visit occurred.
These distinctions matter because a contact exchange, an unfulfilled sexual approach and a cancelled visit answer different questions. Combining them would create an unsupported account of repeated completed encounters.
June 2013 yacht remark, island visit and aircraft proposal
The June 13, 2013 exchange records Epstein describing Sulayem as a trusted friend. Sulayem’s reply uses a sexualized description of a Russian woman he intended to see on his yacht. The yacht remark is Sulayem’s, not Epstein’s. It describes an intention without establishing a completed encounter, an age, payment or how the woman became involved. The men’s wording does not establish facts about her identity or personal characteristics.
Sulayem’s June 26, 2013 message thanks Epstein for a pleasant time at his island. This is a contemporaneous participant account supporting a completed visit, although it provides no itinerary, passenger list or account from anyone else present.
The same message then discusses Epstein’s aircraft. Sulayem says Jim would coordinate with Epstein’s pilot to inspect it and become familiar with it. He describes a possible six month trial beginning in September, dependent on a satisfactory report, and a possible arrangement after travel to Africa. That conditional wording records a proposal. It does not establish a signed lease, transfer of ownership, completed trial or passenger flight.
The file illustrates why the status of each action must be read separately even within one email. The island visit is described as past; the aircraft arrangement is conditional and future. Neither passage identifies a sexual encounter or a minor.
November 2013 arrival of two women
The November 12, 2013 message states that the Ukrainian and the Moldavian had arrived. Sulayem expressed disappointment that the latter did not look as attractive as her picture and praised the former’s appearance. The national descriptions are his; the file does not independently verify either woman’s nationality.
Epstein’s response says “photo shop.” Sulayem’s next reply adds a negative assessment of the woman’s height and build. The sequence documents appearance based evaluation and a shared exchange about photographs. It is more specific than a vague reference to knowing women, but narrower than proof of a sexual transaction.
The surviving thread does not say where the women arrived, who selected them, who booked or paid for travel, whether Epstein made the introduction, how old they were or what they understood the visit to involve. No woman’s account is preserved in this exchange. No payment, sexual act, coercion or completed appointment is described. The statement that they arrived can be reported as Sulayem’s claim without inventing the missing arrangement around it.
December 2013 Tokyo massage report
The December 10, 2013 email is headed “Just tried this massage.” Sulayem says he is in Tokyo and has tried the full massage. He includes a price menu that explicitly advertises intimate touching and manual sexual stimulation. Unlike the undated New York request, this document itself supplies a sexual context for the advertised service.
Epstein’s reply later that day expresses approval and repeats the menu. It establishes receipt and response. It does not show Epstein recommending the business beforehand, reserving the service or paying for it.
The email is Sulayem’s account of his own experience, not a service receipt or independent witness report. The advertised prices are menu charges rather than a verified total he paid. The providers’ ages are not stated, and the menu’s use of the word girls does not establish that any provider was a minor. No provider’s account or allegation of coercion is contained in the exchange.
September 2015 sexual account about a university student
Sulayem’s September 30, 2015 email describes a woman as having a Russian father and a Cypriot mother and attending the American University in Dubai. He says they met two years earlier, that she had become engaged and that she was now with him again. He then boasts about a sexual encounter and her body. The message lists a photograph attachment, but the woman’s identity and image are not needed to explain the evidence.
The account belongs to Sulayem. It is not a statement by the woman and does not establish what she agreed to, how she experienced the relationship or whether his description was accurate. University attendance is not an exact age. The email does not show that Epstein introduced them, arranged the reported encounter or paid anyone. It documents sexual boasting shared with Epstein, with no independently corroborated account of the encounter.
December 2016 island transport and April 2017 spa designs
The December 2, 2016 correspondence records Sulayem’s intention to fly to St Thomas that afternoon. Epstein offered to bring him and a female companion to the island by car and boat because his helicopter pilot was elsewhere with him. Sulayem replied that he would spend the night at the Ritz and asked whether to meet at the airport or be collected later.
Epstein’s December 3 message changes the plan to a car outside the hotel at 10 a.m., referring to another friend’s physical condition. These messages document concrete transport coordination and a change of plan. The cited sequence does not contain a driver’s completed journey record or a subsequent account confirming that this particular transfer occurred. It supplies no age or sexual account for the companion.
Sulayem’s April 3, 2017 introduction tells Epstein that Michal Hrabovsky would meet him in Paris to discuss the design of a spa on the island. It provides anticipated travel and meeting details. The message records the introduction and planned discussion. Later design correspondence provides evidence of work beyond this initial proposal.
The April 16 design delivery contains Cem Kapancioglu’s description of three attached hammam documents, including two design options. He identifies his firm as CK Architecture Interiors and describes one concept as informed by Hrabovsky’s visits. The April 17 revision says the layout had been changed following Epstein’s comments. These messages support actual design preparation and revision, rather than only a suggested introduction.
The subsequent April 17 exchange records Epstein objecting to an entry desk because the space was his house, approving the general layout with further changes and asking about the next step. Kapancioglu proposes a design offer and cost estimate. The records do not prove construction, completion or abusive use of the proposed spa. They also do not specify sexual services as its purpose.
June 2017 Rixos referral and the trainee’s request
The June 5 and 6, 2017 chain starts with a woman thanking Sulayem, saying she was ready to travel and willing to devote the time needed to improve. She said she held a Russian passport and asked what documents or visa preparation were necessary. Her own message presents the opportunity as training.
Sulayem’s forwarded request addresses Rixos owner Fettah Tamince and describes the woman as the personal masseuse at Epstein’s private spa. He asks for a traineeship at a Rixos spa in Antalya so that she can gain experience. Epstein’s June 5 response asks that she learn as much as possible, including the treatments offered. The request for broad training is explicit; a request for sexual instruction is not.
The June 6 response from Sebla Soydan, whose signature identifies her as director of the chairman’s office and Tamince’s assistant, says she would arrange the traineeship while he was in Astana. Sulayem asks that the woman be trained in all treatments. Soydan promises an extensive programme. The chain thus identifies the referral, the requested benefit, the person taking responsibility and an affirmative institutional response.
The June 7 follow up is more qualified than a complete itinerary. Soydan says she has asked for a CV and telephone number so that staff can establish the trainee’s existing massage skills and needs. She proposes a conversation with the spa manager before a plan can be drafted. Epstein asks about the duration, offers to pay accommodation costs and raises bringing another assistant so that skills could later be taught to others. At that stage, staff were still gathering information.
The June 9 correspondence records Epstein proposing a second assistant. His next message asks whether the two could learn together. These are requests to expand the arrangement from one trainee to two. Later travel and completion records are necessary to establish that the expansion went ahead.
Tickets, accommodation and the reported completion of training
The June 15 training offer says a spa manager had prepared a ten day programme and spoken with the prospective trainee by telephone. It names the Land of Legends Spa for training and Rixos Premium Belek for accommodation. The next day’s forwarding message attempts to coordinate the women’s room and travel dates.
The two June 16 ticket messages and the companion itinerary say the women would meet at JFK and take the same flights to Turkey for spa training. The itinerary lists a June 20 departure from New York, arrival in Antalya via Istanbul on June 21, and onward travel from Antalya to Paris via Istanbul on July 4. It contains ticket information and confirmed flight sectors. That is evidence of issued travel arrangements, not by itself proof that the passengers boarded.
The June 17 hotel confirmation distinguishes the accommodation from the training site. It names Rixos Premium Belek as the hotel and the Spa of The Land of Legends as the training location. Soydan confirms a room and airport pickup. The message describes an inclusive board arrangement with extra charges for certain services, including spa services. The booking therefore did not include every service or expense.
The initial June 17 payment notice requests €5,230 for June 20 through July 4. The revised June 20 notice requests €4,910 for June 21 through July 4. These are different reservation dates and requested amounts, not two proved separate payments. The revision brings the room’s arrival date into line with the flight itinerary.
The June 17 payment discussion explains that the hotel could not take a remote American Express payment and directs the correspondent to reservations staff for an alternative. The June 21 chain then records reservations manager Elif Ceylan confirming receipt of payment to Bella Klein, with Lesley Groff copied. Klein acknowledges the confirmation. This confirms receipt of a payment after earlier problems. The confirmation’s first page omits its amount; the separately attached payment slip is outside the reviewed source set.
The June 28 and 29 correspondence changes the intended departure again. Klein says the women would leave Antalya on June 30 rather than July 4 and requests credit for four nights. Ceylan confirms the reservation was changed and asks for revised flight information for the airport transfer. The July 7 refund confirmation records Klein acknowledging receipt of the money; the quoted June 30 hotel reply gives the refund as €1,840. These records establish a changed booking and acknowledged refund. The final invoice and payment slip are needed to establish the exact net trip cost.
The confirmation’s proposed starting time is the morning of June 21, while the issued itinerary schedules arrival in Antalya that evening. The reviewed documents therefore leave a timing discrepancy. The exact first training session remains unresolved.
The June 22 exchange shows continued contact during the scheduled training period. Epstein asks that the women work hard and says long hours are acceptable. Soydan assures him that staff will take care of both and make the visit serve its purpose. Neither message supplies a timesheet or fixes the first session’s date.
The July 17 exchange provides the strongest follow through. Epstein thanks Soydan and Tamince and claims the training changed the women’s lives and his. Soydan replies that they are glad the training was successful, describes both women as working efficiently and offers further assistance. This is a contemporaneous institutional account of completed training by two participants, rather than a mere plan to send one.
Neither Epstein’s praise nor Soydan’s assessment is a complete account from the women themselves. The correspondence does not establish every treatment taught, an exact attendance schedule, the complete final bill, what the trainees later did at Epstein’s properties or whether they experienced abuse elsewhere. It does establish that Sulayem’s referral led to arrangements which Rixos later described as successfully carried out.
Who handled each part of the Rixos arrangement
| Function | Documented participant and action | Evidentiary limit |
|---|---|---|
| Initial request for training | The prospective trainee expressed readiness, supplied documentation and asked about travel requirements | Her message does not describe her entire relationship with Epstein |
| Referral to the hotel owner | Sulayem approached Tamince, described her role for Epstein and asked for extensive training | No sexual curriculum is specified |
| Scope and funding offer | Epstein asked about duration, offered accommodation funding and proposed another trainee | An offer to pay is not proof of a completed charge |
| Training coordination | Soydan sought a CV, contact information and a discussion with the spa manager | The full curriculum and attendance records are not included |
| Flights | The ticket forwarding correspondence arranged shared travel via Istanbul | Tickets do not independently prove boarding |
| Hotel and airport transfer | Soydan confirmed the room and pickup and identified the separate training site | The exact first training session remains unverified |
| Payment and refund | Ceylan acknowledged payment to Klein, who later confirmed receipt of the refund | The final invoice and attached payment slip were not inspected |
| Completion account | Soydan reported successful training for both women after Epstein’s thanks | Neither message is a full independent participant account |
The women’s accounts and the limits of the available record
The trainee’s June 5 message preserves her own stated eagerness to learn and questions about preparing for the trip. Soydan’s July response gives a favorable professional assessment of both women. These are different kinds of evidence. The former records what one participant wrote before the programme; the latter records what an organizer said afterward. Epstein’s claim that the training transformed their lives cannot substitute for their own retrospective testimony.
The 2013 arrival thread and the 2015 sexual account preserve Sulayem’s evaluations rather than the women’s perspectives. The files do not provide the women’s own descriptions of satisfaction, consent or harm. The absence of an allegation in a particular email is not proof about every event in a person’s life.
The word girls occurs in correspondence about both women and trainees. It is not an age finding. Nationality descriptions, university attendance and a massage job likewise do not supply an exact age. The reviewed chains do not establish that the women in the different episodes were the same people. Each account has its own unresolved ages and circumstances.
An escort directory link is not a booking record
The October 14, 2017 email records Epstein sending Sulayem a link to an escort directory for Italy. Sulayem responds with an expression of surprise. The evidence is the exchange itself, which records sharing and acknowledgment of an adult service directory.
The thread contains no selection of a provider, appointment, travel arrangement, payment or report of a meeting. It supports a finding that Epstein shared the link and Sulayem acknowledged it. It does not establish that either man used the service, and it cannot fill the missing logistics in the unrelated 2013 arrival thread.
The April 2009 torture video email
Epstein’s April 24, 2009 email says “I loved the torture video.” The recipient is redacted in this released copy. The April 25 chain contains a reply from a redacted correspondent about being in China and expecting to visit the United States in the second week of May, followed by Epstein expressing a wish to meet. It does not include the video or describe its contents.
ABC News’ February 11, 2026 report identifies the exchange with Sulayem in its account of the disclosures. That attribution is distinct from what a reader can see in the redacted PDFs. The phrase is Epstein’s statement; the footage itself is absent from the cited files.
The cited documents do not establish what the video depicted, whether the word torture was literal, who created it, who appeared in it or how it reached Epstein. They do not establish that Sulayem produced a video, harmed anyone or sent footage of Epstein’s victims. Identifying the correspondent does not resolve the content or provenance of the missing material.
Witness records and the Priscilla Doe complaint
The September 10, 2019 interview notes include a brief reference to a man from Dubai called Sultan. The notes contain redactions and other people and episodes nearby. The shorthand does not securely connect surrounding statements about unidentified people to Sulayem. It is a lead in a witness record, rather than a self contained allegation identifying an act of abuse by him.
Priscilla Doe’s August 20, 2019 civil complaint gives a more developed account of how she says Epstein used powerful relationships. Paragraph 100 alleges that he emphasized powerful friendships to cause her to continue engaging in commercial sexual activity. Paragraphs 101 and 102 describe his claims of closeness to influential people. Doe says she overheard him talking to the person he called the Sultan of Dubai and met that person once. These remain allegations in a civil pleading.
The complaint’s paragraph 107 separately alleges that unnamed powerful friends sexually abused Doe during forced massages. It does not identify the Sultan of Dubai as one of those friends. The complaint also does not give his full name or name him as a defendant. Merging the meeting allegation with the later unnamed abuse allegation would falsely make the complaint accuse Sulayem of a specific act it does not attribute to him.
The 2006 Staley introduction email shows that Epstein’s circle used the informal label for Sulayem. It supplies a strong identification lead, but does not independently establish whom Doe met. The shared reference to Sultan also does not establish that the interview notes concern the woman who filed the complaint.
Doe’s account matters to understanding the alleged use of prestigious connections in Epstein’s coercive environment. That significance can be described while keeping the accusation attached to Epstein’s alleged conduct and declining to assign unnamed abuse to an individual without evidence.
Rixos owner’s response and the unresolved 2010 message
İsmail Saymaz’s February 4, 2026 interview with Fettah Tamince records Tamince acknowledging that Sulayem, whom he described as a trusted friend, had requested training for two therapists. He said his assistant coordinated it during his travels and described a two week course in Turkish bath practices at Rixos Premium Belek. He denied knowing or meeting Epstein.
Tamince’s explanation in that interview said staff relied on Sulayem’s referral. He asserted that the trainees were adults, while also saying he had not located their names or records in the hotel archive at that point. The age assertion is his response, not a separately verified finding. The contemporary emails establish staff correspondence with Epstein and name the Land of Legends as the planned training site; they do not by themselves prove a personal meeting between Epstein and Tamince.
The November 10, 2010 released message provides Tamince’s assistant’s contact details and refers to a stay at a Rixos hotel in Antalya. Both sender and recipient are redacted in the inspected PDF. That copy cannot independently establish that Epstein wrote it, who stayed at the hotel or whether Tamince met the writer. It therefore does not conclusively contradict Tamince’s denial of a personal meeting.
Sulayem’s public response and corporate consequences
DP World’s February 13, 2026 announcement confirms that Sulayem resigned with immediate effect. It appoints Essa Kazim as chairman and Yuvraj Narayan as group chief executive. The announcement itself does not mention Epstein or give a reason for the resignation.
Reuters’ February 18 report says two knowledgeable sources linked the decision to the released files, but the outlet could not determine a particular triggering disclosure. It also reports that British International Investment and La Caisse welcomed the management changes after pausing new joint investment. Reuters said Sulayem did not answer its questions and DP World declined comment. Those are the outlet’s reporting outcomes, not a new request for comment made for this article.
Associated Press reporting distinguishes investment alongside DP World in projects from ownership of DP World itself. The pauses concerned new ventures. A business partner’s decision to suspend new cooperation is a corporate response, not a criminal finding about the executive.
Reuters’ July 15, 2026 report describes a July 12 memo under which Sulayem, as executive chairman, would take charge of MMC Port Holdings after the chief executive’s departure. His DP World resignation therefore cannot be treated as the end of his ports career.
Reuters’ August 20 follow up reports that MMC Corporation defended his appointment on the basis of expertise and experience, while 31 civil society groups sought its reversal. The report again said he had made no public response to the Epstein emails. That reported absence is not an admission or denial.
The accessible records and reporting reviewed through October 1, 2026 did not establish an Epstein related criminal charge or judicial finding against Sulayem. This is a bounded research finding, not a certification of every court record or a claim that a court exonerated him. The evidence supports close contact, particular favors and arrangements, and sexualized exchanges. Knowledge of trafficking or participation in abuse requires evidence beyond association, professional help or the correspondence’s language alone.
Timeline chart
| Date | Development | Status supported by the record |
|---|---|---|
| August and September 2005 | Island dates discussed around New York meetings | Planned travel; top massage request has invalid date |
| February 8, 2006 | Staley introduction uses informal Sultan of Dubai label and full name | Identification and meeting coordination |
| November 9, 2007 | Reuters describes an unsuccessful sexual approach | Attributed reporting; no verified matching EFTA file |
| April 24 and 25, 2009 | Epstein mentions a torture video; redacted correspondent discusses travel | Email wording verified; identification attributed to reporting; footage absent |
| May 2011 | Katherine Keating contact introduction | Email contact facilitated; no sexual purpose stated |
| September 3, 2011 | Epstein reports an acquaintance cancelled expected women | Cancelled plan; purpose and ages unstated |
| June 13 and June 26, 2013 | Yacht intention followed by a separate island visit acknowledgment and aircraft proposal | Intention, retrospective visit account and conditional proposal are distinct |
| November 12, 2013 | Two women’s arrival and appearance discussed | Arrival reported; logistics and purpose unstated |
| December 10, 2013 | Sulayem sends Tokyo sexual service menu | Personal account of use, without independent receipt |
| September 30, 2015 | Sulayem describes a sexual relationship | His account; woman’s age and perspective absent |
| December 2 and 3, 2016 | St Thomas lodging and island pickup coordinated | Specific arrangements; transfer completion unconfirmed |
| April 2017 | Spa introduction followed by design deliveries and revisions | Design work documented; construction unconfirmed |
| June 5 through 9, 2017 | Rixos referral, staff assessment and second trainee proposal | Accepted coordination, with details still developing |
| June 15 through 21, 2017 | Programme, tickets, hotel dates and payment organized | Bookings and payment acknowledgment; start time discrepancy |
| June 28 through July 7, 2017 | Departure changed to June 30; four night refund requested and received | Booking amended and refund acknowledged |
| July 17, 2017 | Rixos replies to Epstein’s thanks | Successful training of both women reported |
| October 14, 2017 | Epstein sends an escort directory link | Link sharing and acknowledgment; no booking |
| August 20, 2019 | Priscilla Doe files civil complaint | Meeting and power allegations; no named abuse allegation against Sulayem |
| February 4 and February 13, 2026 | Tamince responds publicly; DP World announces resignation | Attributed response and confirmed corporate change |
| July and August 2026 | MMC Ports leadership and parent company defense reported | Continuing corporate role, with public opposition |
Key takeaways
- The records establish a relationship involving practical favors, invitations, introductions, transport planning, professional design work and sexualized correspondence. Different episodes have different levels of corroboration
- The Rixos sequence has unusually strong administrative follow through: a referral, an expanding training request, tickets, hotel arrangements, a confirmed payment, a shortened booking, a refund and a later report of successful training for two women
- Sulayem’s November 2013 arrival account and his December Tokyo massage report are separate events. Neither should be merged with the 2017 trainees, and ages cannot be inferred across them
- Sulayem authored the June 2013 yacht intention and September 2015 sexual boast. Epstein authored the video remark and sent the October 2017 escort link. Correct authorship is essential to understanding what each man actually said or did
- The woman seeking Rixos training wrote positively about the opportunity. Epstein’s later praise and the hotel representative’s assessment do not replace the trainees’ own full accounts of their experiences
- Priscilla Doe’s complaint describes the alleged coercive use of powerful connections. It does not identify Sulayem as one of the unnamed friends she accused of sexual abuse
- Corporate departures, investment pauses and later appointment controversies are important consequences. They do not establish criminal liability, and a reported lack of public response does not resolve the underlying questions
Open questions
- Who organized the November 2013 women’s travel, where did they arrive and what did each understand or experience during the visit?
- What exact dates, curriculum and attendance records survive for the 2017 training, and how do the women themselves describe the programme and their later work?
- What do the final Rixos invoice and payment slip show about the amount charged, additional services and the refunded nights?
- Which proposed island transfers, meetings and aircraft arrangements were completed, and what independent records establish them?
- Was the April 2017 spa design built, where and with what eventual use?
- What was the video Epstein referred to in April 2009, who supplied it and what evidence survives independently of his description?
- Can the redacted witness and civil complaint references be more precisely identified without assigning allegations about unnamed people to Sulayem?
- What would Sulayem say about the individual arrival, training, massage and video exchanges if he addressed them publicly?
Chronological receipt index
- Island planning and undated massage inquiry: Dated 2005 messages with an unusable date on the top request
- 2006 identification in the Staley introduction: Informal label and full business identity in the same correspondence
- April 2009 video chain: Epstein’s statement and redacted travel reply, without the video
- May 2011 contact exchange: Introduction and clarification of an email address
- June 2013 yacht intention: Sulayem’s stated plan, following Epstein’s expression of trust
- June 2013 island thanks and aircraft proposal: A retrospective visit account alongside conditional future arrangements
- November 2013 arrival and replies: The complete short exchange about two women’s appearance
- December 2013 Tokyo service report: Sulayem’s message with the advertised menu
- September 2015 sexual account: His description of a university student and relationship
- December 2016 transfer coordination: Planned hotel pickup for an island visit
- April 2017 design delivery: Hammam options sent after Sulayem’s introduction
- June 2017 Rixos referral: Trainee’s request, Sulayem’s intervention and staff response
- June 2017 training programme: Ten day proposal and separate hotel and spa locations
- June 2017 tickets: Shared travel planning, subsequently amended
- June 2017 payment: Hotel acknowledgment that payment was received
- June 2017 shorter reservation: Four nights removed after changed travel plans
- July 2017 refund: Klein acknowledges receipt after the hotel states €1,840
- July 2017 training outcome: Rixos reports success for both women
- October 2017 escort link: Acknowledgment without a documented appointment
- 2019 civil complaint: Doe’s allegations about power and a meeting, distinct from unnamed abuse allegations
Related records
- Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem: Broader background on the businessman and his correspondence with Epstein
- Sulayem in witness records and a survivor’s civil complaint: Related treatment of the witness and pleading evidence
- Photographic evidence concerning Sulayem: A separate visual record, which should not be treated as proof of the events discussed in every email
Full Sources
Primary files and court records
- EFTA02334646: Dated August and September 2005 island planning beneath a massage scheduling inquiry with an invalid exported date
- JPMorgan court exhibit 285 13: Filed August 15, 2023; PDF page 2 contains the February 8, 2006 email linking Sultan of Dubai with Sulayem’s full name and positions
- EFTA00749241: April 24, 2009 email from Epstein referring to a torture video; recipient redacted
- EFTA00749245: April 24 and 25, 2009 chain with the video remark and redacted correspondent’s China and United States travel reply
- EFTA02317730: November 10, 2010 message referring to an Antalya hotel stay; sender and recipient redacted
- EFTA00909900: May 2011 contact introduction involving Katherine Keating
- EFTA00909985: Extended May 2011 chain clarifying the address and carrying Sulayem’s corporate signature
- EFTA01853867: September 3, 2011 report that an unnamed acquaintance cancelled expected women
- EFTA01967274: June 13, 2013 exchange containing Epstein’s expression of trust and Sulayem’s yacht intention
- EFTA02571134: June 26, 2013 thanks for an island visit and conditional aircraft proposal
- EFTA01948102: November 12, 2013 report of two women’s arrival
- EFTA01948146: Epstein’s reply about the photograph
- EFTA00630890: Sulayem’s final reply, preserving the short November 12 chain
- EFTA00630885: December 10, 2013 Tokyo massage account with an explicit commercial service menu
- EFTA00978456: Epstein’s December 10 response and repeated menu
- EFTA01791345: September 30, 2015 message containing Sulayem’s sexual account of a woman he described as a university student
- EFTA01771601: December 2, 2016 St Thomas, Ritz and island transfer correspondence
- EFTA02667329: December 3, 2016 proposed hotel pickup
- EFTA02654919: April 3, 2017 spa design introduction and proposed Paris meeting
- EFTA00677997: April 16, 2017 delivery of hammam design options by CK Architecture Interiors
- EFTA01048858: April 17, 2017 revised layout following Epstein’s comments
- EFTA02354910: April 17, 2017 layout response and proposed design offer and cost estimate
- EFTA02648996: June 5 and 6, 2017 Rixos referral, trainee’s message, Sulayem’s request and Soydan’s responses
- EFTA01044451: June 5, 2017 Epstein request for extensive treatment training
- EFTA02385166: June 7, 2017 CV, skills assessment, accommodation funding and second trainee discussion
- EFTA02647245: June 9, 2017 proposal to send a second assistant
- EFTA02647488: June 9, 2017 request for the two trainees to learn together
- EFTA00456879: June 15 and 16, 2017 ten day training offer at Land of Legends and accommodation coordination at Premium Belek
- EFTA00456906: June 16, 2017 ticket message with June 20 departure, June 21 arrival and original July 4 onward travel
- EFTA00456914: Companion June 16 ticket message for the same planned flights
- EFTA00455179: June 17, 2017 room, transfer, training site and payment coordination
- EFTA00455172: June 17, 2017 payment request for €5,230 and June 20 through July 4 dates
- EFTA00454787: June 20, 2017 revised request for €4,910 and June 21 through July 4 dates
- EFTA00454884: June 21, 2017 hotel confirmation that payment was received
- EFTA02647082: June 22, 2017 training period correspondence about the women’s work
- EFTA00454718: June 28 and 29, 2017 shortened reservation, four night refund request and revised transfer coordination
- EFTA02218048: July 7, 2017 refund receipt acknowledgment, quoting the hotel’s June 30 amount of €1,840
- EFTA00650646: July 17, 2017 thanks and Rixos report that both trainees’ training was successful
- EFTA00645757: October 14, 2017 escort directory link and acknowledgment
- Priscilla Doe civil complaint: Southern District of New York, case 1:19 cv 07772, Document 1, filed August 20, 2019; PDF pages 22 and 23 contain the distinct meeting and unnamed abuse allegations
- EFTA00021076: Interview notes dated September 10, 2019; PDF page 16, stamped EFTA00021091, contains the brief Dubai and Sultan reference
Institutional statements and reporting
- DP World: February 13, 2026 announcement of Sulayem’s resignation and replacement appointments
- Drop Site: January 14, 2026 account of separately leaked correspondence, with a screenshot of the November 9, 2007 exchange
- İsmail Saymaz’s Tamince interview: Halk TV, February 4, 2026; Turkish language response acknowledging a Sulayem referral and denying personal knowledge of Epstein
- ABC News: February 11, 2026 reporting attributing the April 2009 exchange to Sulayem while noting the missing context for the video
- Associated Press: February 2026 reporting on investment partners and corporate consequences
- Reuters on Middle East correspondence: February 18, 2026 report by Jana Choukeir, Andrew Mills and Maha El Dahan; source for the unsuccessful 2007 approach, attributed resignation context and comment requests
- Reuters on MMC Ports: July 15, 2026 report on a July 12 leadership memo
- Reuters on MMC’s response: August 20, 2026 report on the company’s defense of the appointment and civic opposition