Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem and Jeffrey Epstein

UpdatedSeptember 27, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

How one of Dubai’s most powerful executives maintained a documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein involving international business, political access, banking introductions, women, massages, private islands, financial transactions, and communications that continued long after Epstein became a registered sex offender.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was not an incidental name in Jeffrey Epstein’s contact book. He was a powerful international executive whose relationship with Epstein extended across years, countries, business ventures, political introductions, financial matters, private travel, and sexually explicit correspondence.

The records place Epstein in a familiar role. He acted as an intermediary between wealth and power. He offered access to bankers, politicians, investors, diplomats, academics, and private social circles. Bin Sulayem, in turn, controlled or influenced ports, hotels, development projects, aircraft connections, investment companies, and relationships inside the United Arab Emirates.

Their correspondence continued after Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction for soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under eighteen for prostitution. It continued after Epstein was publicly registered as a sex offender. Records and reporting indicate that contact persisted until at least 2018, while a January 2019 island guest record contains the name “Sultan.”

Some of the communications are explicitly sexual. Others concern major international projects, including DP World’s London Gateway port. Still others involve Peter Mandelson, Ehud Barak, Prince Andrew, Anil Ambani, Tom Barrack, Jes Staley, and questions about access to the incoming Trump administration.

Bin Sulayem’s name also appeared in the corporate structure used to acquire Great St. James after the seller reportedly refused to sell the island directly to Epstein because of his criminal history.

The evidence demands scrutiny. It also demands precision.

Bin Sulayem has not been criminally charged with participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation. A message, guest list, photograph, financial entry, or property document does not by itself establish participation in sexual abuse. The evidence instead establishes a sustained and consequential relationship containing several matters that remain unexplained.

Executive Snapshot

Full name: Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem

Born: 1955

Nationality: Emirati

Education: Economics degree from Temple University

Principal position: Former chairman and group chief executive of DP World

Other major roles: Former chairman of the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation; former leader of Dubai World, Nakheel, Istithmar World, and the Jebel Ali Free Zone

Documented Epstein relationship: Direct correspondence, political introductions, banking referrals, business discussions, travel planning, sexual communications, property records, financial records, and island related evidence

Earliest presently documented communications: At least 2007

Relationship after Epstein’s 2008 conviction: Yes

Latest identified connection: Communications reportedly continued into 2018, and a January 2019 island guest list contains the name “Sultan”

Great St. James connection: Bin Sulayem’s name was used in records identifying the purported owner behind the company that acquired the island in 2016

Publicly identified criminal charge related to Epstein: None

Publicly identified judicial finding that bin Sulayem participated in trafficking: None

Professional consequence: Replaced as DP World chairman and chief executive in February 2026 after publication of the correspondence generated international pressure

Current known position: Appointed executive chairman of MMC Ports in Malaysia in 2026

Who Is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem?

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was one of the principal corporate figures associated with Dubai’s transformation into a global trade, logistics, tourism, and real estate center.

After studying economics at Temple University in Philadelphia, he entered Dubai’s customs and ports sector. In 1985, Dubai’s leadership appointed him to help develop the Jebel Ali Free Zone. The zone eventually became one of the Middle East’s most important commercial and logistics centers.

Bin Sulayem later held senior positions connected to several major Dubai enterprises:

Jebel Ali Free Zone
Dubai Ports International
DP World
Dubai World
Nakheel
Istithmar World
The Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation
Dubai Multi Commodities Centre related development
Virgin Hyperloop One

DP World emerged from the consolidation of Dubai Ports Authority and Dubai Ports International. Its acquisition of the British company P&O expanded its global presence and made the company a significant operator of ports and terminals.

Bin Sulayem became chairman of DP World in 2007. He was appointed group chairman and chief executive in 2016.

His importance was not limited to corporate management. DP World is closely connected to Dubai’s government and strategic economic policy. Through his positions, bin Sulayem had access to senior government officials, sovereign investment institutions, international banks, port authorities, investors, and political leaders.

That combination of authority and access helps explain Epstein’s interest in the relationship.

Why Jeffrey Epstein Would Value the Relationship

Epstein repeatedly attempted to make himself valuable to powerful people by operating between formal institutions and private networks.

Bin Sulayem possessed assets and access Epstein could use:

Hotels and luxury properties
International ports
Government connected investment entities
Aviation and travel connections
Access to Emirati officials
Relationships across Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East
Potential investment opportunities
Connections to sovereign and institutional capital

Epstein offered a different set of resources:

Relationships with major banks
Access to political figures
Introductions to wealthy investors
Connections to American and European officials
Relationships with Israeli political and security figures
Private properties in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico, Paris, and the United States Virgin Islands
Social access to women discussed in sexual terms

The files show these interests overlapping. Business introductions, political access, private travel, women, massages, hotels, and investment opportunities appear within the same relationship.

That overlap does not establish that every transaction or introduction was criminal. It shows why the relationship cannot be reduced to a chance social encounter.

Documented Relationship Timeline

2007: Early Correspondence

Public reporting based on the Justice Department release places bin Sulayem in direct communication with Epstein by at least 2007.

One reported exchange included bin Sulayem expressing gratitude to Epstein with the phrase, “Praise Allah, there are still people like you.”

The precise favor referenced in that exchange requires the complete surrounding correspondence. The message nevertheless demonstrates familiarity and gratitude rather than an unsolicited approach from a stranger.

This contact occurred before Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea but after the Palm Beach investigation had begun and after allegations against him had received public attention.

2008: Epstein Pleads Guilty

On June 30, 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under eighteen for prostitution.

The plea and sentence made Epstein’s criminal status public. He served approximately thirteen months in the Palm Beach County stockade under a controversial work release arrangement and was required to register as a sex offender.

Bin Sulayem’s communications with Epstein continued after this conviction.

That fact does not prove knowledge of every allegation against Epstein. It does establish that the later relationship occurred after Epstein’s criminal record became publicly accessible.

April 2009: The “Torture Video” Message

On April 24, 2009, Epstein sent a message to a recipient whose identity was redacted in the publicly released version. The message asked where the recipient was, asked whether he was all right, and stated that Epstein “loved the torture video.”

Representative Thomas Massie later said that he reviewed an unredacted version and identified bin Sulayem as the recipient. The identification was reported by The New Republic and The Independent.

The message is disturbing, but its limits are substantial. The public record does not reveal what the video depicted, who created it, who appeared in it, whether it depicted an actual assault, or whether the phrase was being used literally.

The email establishes a communication. It does not establish the contents or legality of the referenced video.

September and October 2009: London Gateway and Peter Mandelson

In 2009, DP World was seeking British government support connected to London Gateway, a proposed deep water port and logistics development on the River Thames.

Released records show Epstein participating in efforts to connect bin Sulayem with Peter Mandelson, then Britain’s business secretary.

EFTA02436297 states that Mandelson’s office had made time to meet Sultan Sulayem on September 16.

EFTA00880531 refers to a meeting involving bin Sulayem, Mandelson, and London Gateway.

A related record appears in EFTA01817060.

Reporting on the correspondence indicates that Epstein supplied access to Mandelson and encouraged him to assist bin Sulayem. The effort concerned government backing and financial support for a project reportedly valued at approximately £1.8 billion.

London Gateway eventually proceeded and became a major DP World facility.

The records establish that Epstein acted as an intermediary. They do not prove that he controlled a British government decision or that his intervention caused the project’s approval.

2010: Banking and Hotel Refinancing

Correspondence from this period reportedly involved refinancing associated with a London hotel property connected to bin Sulayem.

The records indicate that bin Sulayem sought Epstein’s assistance reaching bankers, including Jes Staley, who was then a senior JPMorgan executive.

In later congressional testimony concerning his relationship with Epstein, Staley said that Epstein referred several prospective clients to JPMorgan, including bin Sulayem. The testimony can be reviewed in the Jes Staley transcript.

A banking referral is not evidence of a fraudulent or unlawful transaction. It demonstrates that Epstein used his JPMorgan relationships to assist members of his network.

2011 Through 2014: Meetings and Political Introductions

Records and reporting place bin Sulayem in planned meetings involving Epstein’s Manhattan residence during this period.

Epstein also appears to have facilitated contact involving former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

The timing is notable because these communications preceded the 2020 normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Epstein was attempting to create relationships between influential Israeli and Emirati figures before such contacts became routine or publicly celebrated.

Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth examined this wider access network in “The Epstein Accords” for American Freakshow.

The available record supports a finding that Epstein attempted to facilitate introductions. It does not prove that Epstein created later diplomatic agreements or acted on behalf of a government.

2012: DP World Event and Continuing Access

A May 9, 2012 record concerning a DP World chairman event appears in EFTA02035303.

Another invitation naming bin Sulayem appears in EFTA00317396.

These documents add to the evidence that Epstein’s network tracked, facilitated, or participated in events involving bin Sulayem. Invitations and calendars establish planned activity. They do not always prove attendance.

2013: Prince Andrew Reference

Reporting on the correspondence states that bin Sulayem told Epstein he had been invited to lunch with Prince Andrew.

The exchange is relevant because Epstein remained connected to both men after his conviction. It places Epstein inside a network of communications involving a member of the British royal family and a senior executive overseeing major British infrastructure.

The message does not establish that Epstein arranged the lunch, attended it, or discussed criminal activity with either person.

2014: Mandelson Board Discussion

The correspondence reportedly includes an effort by bin Sulayem to have Epstein approach Peter Mandelson about joining the board of one of bin Sulayem’s companies.

This is further evidence that Epstein’s political introductions were not confined to the 2009 London Gateway matter.

It shows a recurring pattern in which Epstein was asked or expected to help move prominent people into private meetings, business relationships, or institutional roles.

2015: Explicit Discussions About Women

Emails reported by the Financial Times include bin Sulayem describing sexual experiences and women in objectifying language.

The correspondence reportedly concerned women in locations including Dubai, Paris, Istanbul, and Tokyo. Some messages referred to women by nationality, appearance, or perceived sexual availability.

One reported message described an encounter with a woman associated with the American University in Dubai as the best sex bin Sulayem had experienced. Other communications referred to Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Russian women.

These messages establish that explicit discussions about women formed part of the relationship.

They do not establish the ages of every woman, whether every encounter involved commercial sex, whether Epstein recruited every woman discussed, or whether any particular woman was trafficked.

Those questions cannot responsibly be answered by nationality, location, or degrading language alone.

2015 and 2016: The Russian Masseuse and Turkish Hotel

The Financial Times reported correspondence concerning a Russian woman described as a masseuse within Epstein’s network.

The records reportedly indicate that bin Sulayem helped arrange for the woman to receive training at a Turkish hotel.

This is more significant than a crude comment because it concerns the movement, placement, or professional training of a woman connected to Epstein’s private network.

The available reporting does not establish her age, whether she traveled, whether she consented to the arrangement, whether the massage work was sexual, or whether she was a victim of trafficking.

The episode remains relevant because Epstein’s trafficking operation used massage appointments as a recruitment and abuse mechanism. That historical fact makes references to massages worthy of investigation, but it does not make every massage reference proof of abuse.

January 2016: The Great St. James Acquisition

By 2016, Epstein already owned Little St. James in the United States Virgin Islands. He sought to purchase neighboring Great St. James.

According to reporting by Julie K. Brown and Kevin G. Hall for the Miami Herald’s Perversion of Justice investigation, the seller was unwilling to sell directly to Epstein because of Epstein’s criminal history.

The purchasing structure used a limited liability company called Great St. Jim LLC.

Documents connected to the transaction identified bin Sulayem as the purported person behind the buyer.

The agreement and related transaction records appear in EFTA00787660. Additional correspondence involving Great St. James, attorney Erika Kellerhals, and bin Sulayem appears in EFTA00582997.

The purchase was completed through two transactions in January 2016 for a reported combined value of approximately $22.5 million.

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands later named Great St. Jim LLC in litigation concerning Epstein’s estate and property network. The official filing is available through the Virgin Islands judiciary.

Earlier reporting stated that bin Sulayem did not know Epstein had used his identity in the transaction. Forbes described him as an apparently unaware businessman whose name had been used to obscure Epstein’s role.

That reported position must be included.

Later disclosures demonstrate that bin Sulayem and Epstein had a much closer relationship than the original property reporting alone revealed. They justify renewed examination of the transaction. They do not automatically prove that bin Sulayem authorized the structure.

The unresolved questions are straightforward:

Did bin Sulayem authorize the use of his name?
Did he sign or approve any beneficial ownership declaration?
Did he know Epstein was the actual purchaser?
Did he contribute funds?
When did he learn that his identity had been used?
Did he take legal action after learning about it?
Did he have any continuing interest in the property?

The released record has not conclusively answered those questions.

2016: Development of the Islands

Some later reporting states that correspondence showed bin Sulayem knew Epstein controlled the islands and discussed development or resort plans.

This evidence could challenge the claim that he had no knowledge of the transaction. However, knowledge that Epstein controlled the property after the purchase is not necessarily proof that bin Sulayem knowingly helped conceal the original acquisition.

A complete determination requires authenticated dates, complete email chains, corporate records, signatures, beneficial ownership filings, bank records, and testimony from the lawyers and agents involved.

2017: Anil Ambani Introduction

In February 2017, Epstein introduced Indian businessman Anil Ambani to bin Sulayem.

This introduction occurred during a period when Ambani was communicating with Epstein about United States political access, the incoming Trump administration, and matters connected to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

The relationship is examined in reporting by The Wire.

The introduction demonstrates Epstein’s continuing effort to connect business leaders across India, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and the United States.

It does not prove that bin Sulayem participated in any undisclosed diplomatic operation or that any proposal discussed by Epstein was implemented.

2017: Trump Inauguration Advice

Reporting on the documents states that Epstein advised bin Sulayem about whether to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration.

This exchange illustrates Epstein’s attempt to present himself as knowledgeable about the incoming administration and the status of people around Trump.

It also places bin Sulayem within Epstein’s post election conversations concerning Washington access.

There is no evidence in the reviewed material that Epstein held an official role in the inauguration or the Trump administration.

2017: The $6,200 Transfer

A financial record documents a $6,200 transaction associated with bin Sulayem and Epstein. The money appears to have been returned the following day.

The record is available as EFTA00027019.

The amount is similar to the approximate cost of thirty 23andMe kits ordered during the same general period, but the transaction record alone does not establish that the payment funded those kits. Treating the two events as conclusively connected would be speculation unless an invoice, memo, email, or accounting record confirms the purpose.

The document establishes a transfer and apparent return. It does not explain why the money moved.

2017: Thirty 23andMe Kits

Emails released by the Justice Department show Epstein assistant Lesley Groff attempting to purchase thirty 23andMe Health and Ancestry Service kits for bin Sulayem.

Each kit reportedly cost $199, bringing the order to slightly under $6,000 before any additional charges.

According to SFGate, the unusually large order triggered a review by 23andMe.

Bin Sulayem reportedly explained that he was interested in ancestry and wanted to distribute the kits to coworkers as gifts.

Groff followed up about the order. The kits were reportedly placed on an Emirates aircraft for transport to Dubai after bin Sulayem did not want to wait for ordinary shipment.

The order is notable because Epstein had a documented interest in genetics, heredity, reproduction, and eugenic ideas.

The order does not establish that the kits were part of a eugenics program, that DNA data was collected without consent, or that Epstein obtained the completed genetic results.

The important unresolved questions are:

Who ultimately received the kits?
Were all recipients informed and consenting?
Who registered the accounts?
Who had access to the results?
Why was Epstein’s staff handling the order?
Was the $6,200 transaction related to the purchase?
Were any kits returned, canceled, or never activated?

Without those records, the purchase should not be converted into a claim about genetic experimentation.

2017 and 2018: Tom Barrack and Middle Eastern Access

Epstein also communicated with Tom Barrack, a longtime associate of Donald Trump who later became a diplomat and adviser on Middle Eastern affairs.

American Freakshow’s “The Epstein Accords” discusses a message in which Epstein told bin Sulayem that Barrack had asked Epstein to give him a hug.

The exchange is evidence of Epstein connecting people inside American political and Emirati business circles.

It does not establish that Barrack and bin Sulayem were communicating through Epstein about an unlawful project.

2018: Continuing Communications

Major news organizations reported that bin Sulayem’s correspondence with Epstein continued until less than one year before Epstein’s death in August 2019.

This means their relationship continued approximately a decade after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.

The duration matters. A person appearing once in an old address book presents a different evidentiary picture from a person exchanging personal and business communications with Epstein across many years.

The records still must be evaluated individually. Duration establishes continuity, not automatic knowledge of Epstein’s entire operation.

January 2019: Island Guest Record

A January 2019 record connected to Epstein’s island contains the name “Sultan,” along with Steve Bannon, Nicole Junkermann, Eduardo Teodorani, and Jabor Yousuf.

The document appears as EFTA02273951.

The timing places the record approximately five months before Epstein’s July 2019 arrest.

Because the document uses only “Sultan,” identity must be established through surrounding communications, dates, travel records, staff testimony, or other corroboration. The broader relationship makes bin Sulayem a plausible identification, but the abbreviated entry should not be overstated.

The record does not prove that every listed person traveled to the island. It establishes that the names appeared in an island guest or planning record.

The Great St. James Corporate Structure

The Great St. James transaction deserves separate attention because it involved a company structure apparently designed to prevent the seller from recognizing Epstein as the real purchaser.

Great St. Jim LLC

The purchasing company was named Great St. Jim LLC, a name similar to Great St. James but not identical.

Corporate entities are routinely used to purchase real estate. The significant issue here is the allegation that the entity was used specifically because the seller would not knowingly sell the island to Epstein.

Purported beneficial ownership

Transaction records reportedly identified bin Sulayem as the person behind the purchasing entity.

A beneficial ownership representation is more significant than a casual mention in an email. Such a representation can influence attorneys, banks, title agents, sellers, and regulatory compliance reviews.

The complete evidentiary analysis requires:

The company formation documents
Operating agreements
Beneficial ownership declarations
Bank account opening records
Purchase funds and wire instructions
Signature pages
Communications with the seller
Communications with title and escrow agents
Communications between Epstein, Kellerhals, and bin Sulayem
Records showing when ownership was transferred or corrected

Epstein’s actual control

The Virgin Islands litigation treated Great St. James as part of Epstein’s property operation. Epstein exercised practical control over the island and incorporated it into his broader Virgin Islands estate.

This supports the conclusion that the company structure did not reflect the property’s actual controller.

It does not, without more evidence, resolve whether bin Sulayem knowingly agreed to serve as the apparent purchaser.

The “LSJ XMAS / Sultan” Evidence Disc

A federal evidence inventory includes a compact disc labeled “LSJ XMAS / Sultan.”

The entry appears in EFTA00005091.

“LSJ” is commonly used in Epstein records to refer to Little St. James. The label suggests material associated with Christmas, the island, and a person called Sultan.

An evidence label is not the same as the contents of the evidence.

The inventory establishes that investigators recovered and catalogued the disc. It does not establish:

Who created the disc
Who labeled it
Which year the material concerns
Which Sultan is referenced
Who appears in the material
Whether bin Sulayem was physically present
Whether the disc contains evidence of a crime

The disc’s contents, metadata, creation date, and chain of custody are necessary before stronger conclusions can be drawn.

Sexually Explicit Correspondence

The Associated Press, Financial Times, Bloomberg, and ABC News reviewed communications involving bin Sulayem and Epstein.

The messages reportedly included:

Descriptions of sexual encounters
References to escorts
Discussions of massages
References to pornography
Images of women
Comments about women’s bodies
References to women by nationality
Discussions concerning women in Dubai, Paris, Istanbul, and Tokyo
Crude speculation about sex and gender
The “torture video” message

A group of relevant correspondence is indexed through EFTA00663685.

The communications are evidence of the character and intimacy of the relationship. They demonstrate that the men discussed more than ports, banking, or politics.

The messages do not automatically establish trafficking. That determination requires evidence of recruitment, transportation, coercion, age, payment, knowledge, and purpose.

Because Epstein’s operation often used massage appointments and intermediaries to recruit victims, references to massages and women deserve close examination. They should not be declared criminal without the supporting facts.

Photographic and Physical Evidence

A Justice Department image reportedly depicts Epstein and bin Sulayem examining what appears to be a miniature panel resembling part of the kiswah, the embroidered cloth associated with the Kaaba.

A photograph can establish that two people were together in a particular setting if identity, date, and provenance are authenticated.

It cannot establish the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the relationship, knowledge of a crime, or participation in misconduct.

The image is corroborative evidence of personal contact. It is not proof of trafficking.

Congressional Identification and Improper Redactions

In February 2026, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie reviewed unredacted Justice Department records.

Khanna then publicly named six men whose identities had been concealed in released material. The list included bin Sulayem.

The initial disclosure created confusion because the six names did not all appear in the same evidentiary context.

The Guardian later reported that four of the six names appeared in photo identification material and did not have demonstrated Epstein relationships.

Bin Sulayem was different. Thousands of search results, emails, property records, and other documents independently established a relationship with Epstein.

This correction matters for two reasons.

First, disclosure of a redacted name does not itself establish wrongdoing.

Second, the correction concerning four unrelated men does not erase the extensive independent evidence concerning bin Sulayem.

Reports stated that bin Sulayem’s name appeared more than 4,700 times in the released files or Justice Department search results. That number should be treated cautiously. Large document productions contain duplicate emails, repeated attachments, address fields, quoted message chains, and optical character recognition errors.

A search count measures appearances, not distinct communications or criminal acts.

Was Bin Sulayem Named as an Epstein Co Conspirator?

Some online summaries have described bin Sulayem as a formally identified Epstein co conspirator.

The publicly reviewed record does not support stating that as an established fact.

The congressional disclosure combined names from different documents. Later reporting clarified that some came from unrelated photo identification material. Other Justice Department records reportedly used the term “co conspirator” for certain individuals, but that does not establish that every person named by Khanna appeared on the same list or received that designation.

Unless a specific authenticated FBI or Justice Department document explicitly identifies bin Sulayem in that category, EpsteinWiki should not describe him as an officially named co conspirator.

The accurate formulation is:

Bin Sulayem was publicly identified from unredacted Epstein related records and had an independently documented relationship with Epstein. He has not been charged as a participant in Epstein’s trafficking conspiracy.

DP World’s Corporate Response

The disclosures created immediate pressure on DP World and its investment partners.

British International Investment paused new investments involving DP World. Canada’s La Caisse also paused future ventures while seeking answers.

The Associated Press reported that the institutions acted after the communications became public.

Reuters reported similar concerns and emphasized that appearance in the files is not proof of criminal activity.

On February 13, 2026, Dubai replaced bin Sulayem as chairman and group chief executive of DP World.

Essa Kazim became chairman. Yuvraj Narayan became group chief executive.

Reuters reported that the personnel change followed pressure concerning the Epstein disclosures.

The official corporate announcement did not publish an investigative report, make a criminal finding, or explain whether DP World had conducted an internal review.

Bin Sulayem was also replaced in his leadership role at the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation.

The Associated Press reported that the emails did not appear to implicate bin Sulayem in Epstein’s crimes. That finding from the reviewed material is important and should not be omitted.

Return to the Ports Industry

Bin Sulayem’s departure from DP World did not end his career in international port management.

In August 2026, Reuters reported that MMC appointed him executive chairman of its Malaysian ports operation.

MMC defended the appointment by citing his experience and expertise. MMC Ports operates a group of strategically located ports along the Strait of Malacca.

The appointment generated renewed scrutiny because it followed his removal from DP World by only several months.

The appointment does not resolve any of the unanswered questions concerning Epstein. It demonstrates that a major infrastructure organization remained willing to employ him despite the disclosures.

Public Responses and Denials

The most important reported response concerns Great St. James.

Earlier reporting stated that bin Sulayem was unaware Epstein had used his name in the purchasing structure. That response directly disputes any claim that he knowingly served as a front purchaser.

Bin Sulayem did not provide a comprehensive public explanation addressing the complete body of emails when contacted by several news organizations in 2026.

DP World declined or did not provide detailed responses to several requests for comment.

Silence is not an admission. It also means the public record lacks bin Sulayem’s explanation for:

The duration of the relationship
Continued contact after Epstein’s conviction
The Great St. James documents
The $6,200 transaction
The 23andMe order
The Russian masseuse arrangement
The “torture video” message
The January 2019 island record
Epstein’s business and political introductions
The sexually explicit communications

What the Evidence Establishes

The available records establish the following:

Bin Sulayem and Epstein communicated directly across multiple years.
The relationship continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
Epstein assisted bin Sulayem with political access connected to Peter Mandelson and London Gateway.
Epstein connected or attempted to connect bin Sulayem with bankers and international business figures.
Epstein referred bin Sulayem to JPMorgan, according to Jes Staley’s testimony.
The two men exchanged sexually explicit communications.
Their communications included references to women, escorts, massages, pornography, and sexual experiences.
Epstein sent a message to a recipient identified by Representative Massie as bin Sulayem that referenced a “torture video.”
Bin Sulayem’s name appeared in records connected to the corporate buyer of Great St. James.
Epstein exercised actual control over Great St. James after the purchase.
A federal evidence inventory contains a disc labeled “LSJ XMAS / Sultan.”
A January 2019 island guest record contains the name “Sultan.”
A financial record documents a $6,200 transaction that appears to have been returned.
Epstein’s staff attempted to purchase thirty 23andMe kits for bin Sulayem.
Epstein introduced bin Sulayem to other influential figures, including Anil Ambani.
Their communications reportedly continued into 2018.
DP World replaced bin Sulayem after the disclosures produced international pressure.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available records do not establish the following:

That bin Sulayem participated in Epstein’s trafficking conspiracy
That he sexually abused an Epstein survivor
That every woman discussed in the messages was a victim
That every massage reference concerned sexual activity
That the women discussed were minors
That bin Sulayem knowingly financed trafficking
That he knowingly authorized the use of his identity to purchase Great St. James
That he visited Little St. James on every occasion suggested by a calendar or guest list
That the “torture video” depicted a real assault
That he created, supplied, or viewed the referenced video
That the 23andMe kits were connected to a eugenics project
That the $6,200 transaction paid for DNA kits or sexual services
That Epstein controlled any decision by Mandelson or the British government
That every planned meeting occurred
That bin Sulayem knew the complete scope of Epstein’s abuse operation

Unanswered Investigative Questions

Great St. James

Who instructed the attorneys to identify bin Sulayem as the person behind Great St. Jim LLC?
Did bin Sulayem sign any ownership or compliance document?
Were identification documents supplied in his name?
Which account funded the purchase?
Who paid the attorneys, title company, taxes, and fees?
When was Epstein formally recorded as the beneficial owner?
Did bin Sulayem object when the transaction became public?

Island Activity

What is stored on the “LSJ XMAS / Sultan” disc?
Which year does the disc cover?
Does its metadata identify a creator or camera?
Did bin Sulayem visit Little St. James or Great St. James?
Does the January 2019 guest entry record a planned trip or completed visit?
Are corresponding flight logs, customs records, photographs, or staff schedules available?

Women and Massages

Who were the women discussed in the correspondence?
Were they adults?
Were they employees, escorts, massage workers, acquaintances, or trafficking victims?
Did Epstein or one of his employees arrange any introductions?
What happened to the Russian masseuse reportedly sent for training in Turkey?
Who paid for her travel, training, and lodging?
Did she provide informed consent for the arrangement?

Financial Activity

What was the purpose of the $6,200 transfer?
Why was it returned?
Was it connected to the 23andMe purchase?
Did Epstein receive any compensation for political or banking introductions?
Did Epstein invest in any bin Sulayem controlled venture?
Did DP World, Dubai World, Istithmar, Nakheel, or a related entity transact with Epstein?

Political Access

What representations did Epstein make to Mandelson?
Did Epstein receive nonpublic information concerning London Gateway?
What contacts did Epstein facilitate between bin Sulayem and Ehud Barak?
What was discussed regarding Prince Andrew?
What role did Tom Barrack play in the network?
What resulted from the Anil Ambani introduction?
Did any government know that Epstein was serving as an intermediary?

Corporate Accountability

When did DP World first learn of the relationship?
Did DP World preserve bin Sulayem’s email and travel records?
Did its board conduct an independent investigation?
Did investment partners receive the results?
Were government security concerns evaluated because of DP World’s control of strategic infrastructure?
Did MMC Ports conduct due diligence before appointing him?

Sleuth and Investigative Reporting Relevant to This Article

American Freakshow’s “The Epstein Accords”, written by Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, examines Epstein’s effort to connect American, Israeli, and Emirati power networks. Its discussion of bin Sulayem and Tom Barrack helps place the correspondence inside Epstein’s broader political access strategy.

Lisa Tait’s investigation examines the email in which Epstein referred to a “torture video.” Her reporting is relevant to the identification and context of that specific communication.

Ellie Leonard’s “Why Resignation Isn’t Good Enough” examines the accountability questions raised by bin Sulayem’s DP World departure and the Great St. James transaction.

These investigations are useful guides to the released archive. Where interpretation goes beyond the face of a document, the underlying EFTA record, court filing, or official statement remains controlling.

No Bekah Day article directly focused on bin Sulayem was located during the source review. Adding an unrelated Bekah Day article merely to include her name would violate EpsteinWiki’s requirement that every source be relevant to the subject.

Evidence Assessment

The bin Sulayem record is stronger than a mere association based on a contact book, party photograph, or secondhand recollection.

The evidence includes direct communications, identifiable business assistance, financial activity, property documents, island related records, and years of continued contact.

The most serious unresolved matters are the use of bin Sulayem’s identity in the Great St. James acquisition, the meaning of the “torture video” message, the Russian masseuse arrangement, the island evidence, and the extent to which Epstein facilitated access to women.

The public evidence does not establish that bin Sulayem committed a trafficking offense. It does establish a close relationship with Epstein that continued after Epstein’s conviction and repeatedly crossed the boundaries between business, politics, property, private travel, and sex.

The record therefore supports neither dismissal nor conviction by association.

It supports continued investigation.

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Primary Receipt Index

Receipt	Date or period	Evidence type	Relevance	Evidence limit
EFTA02436297	September 2009	Email or scheduling record	Mandelson meeting arranged for bin Sulayem	Does not establish meeting outcome
EFTA00880531	2009	Email record	Bin Sulayem, Mandelson, and London Gateway	Does not prove Epstein controlled government support
EFTA01817060	2009	Related correspondence	Additional London Gateway meeting evidence	Context may be incomplete
EFTA02035303	May 9, 2012	Event record	DP World chairman event	Does not necessarily prove attendance
EFTA00317396	Undetermined	Invitation	Names bin Sulayem in an event context	Invitation does not prove attendance
EFTA00787660	January 2016	Property transaction record	Great St. James acquisition structure	Does not independently establish bin Sulayem’s knowledge
EFTA00582997	2016 period	Property correspondence	Great St. James, Kellerhals, and Sultan references	Requires complete chain and corporate records
EFTA00027019	2017	Financial record	$6,200 transaction and apparent return	Purpose is not stated
EFTA00663685	Multiple dates	Correspondence	Communications associated with bin Sulayem	Individual messages require separate context
EFTA00005091	Evidence inventory	Seized physical evidence	Disc labeled “LSJ XMAS / Sultan”	Contents and identity are not established
EFTA02273951	January 2019	Island guest record	Includes the name “Sultan”	Does not prove travel or misconduct
Jes Staley transcript	Congressional testimony	Sworn testimony	Staley states Epstein referred bin Sulayem to JPMorgan	Does not establish an improper account or transaction
Virgin Islands court filing	Civil litigation	Official court record	Great St. Jim LLC and Epstein property structure	Civil allegation is not a criminal conviction

Source List

Primary and Official Records

Independent Reporting

Relevant Sleuth Reporting

PostedDecember 13, 2025