Which specific estates and individuals were named as beneficiaries in Epstein’s 1953 Trust and what have court filings revealed about their claims?
Executive summary
The public record shows very few confirmed names tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s private 1953 Trust: longtime adviser-accountant Richard Kahn, longtime lawyer Darren Indyke, and Epstein’s girlfriend at the time of his death, Karyna Shuliak, appear in court filings as known beneficiaries or as closely connected to the trust, while the trust’s full beneficiary schedule remains undisclosed in probate filings [1] [2] [3]. Court papers and litigation in the U.S. Virgin Islands and federal courts have revealed that Kahn and Indyke also serve as co-executors/co-trustees and that survivors and government lawyers have pressed claims and allegations against the estate and those fiduciaries, leaving distribution and ultimate beneficiaries unresolved [4] [1] [3].
1. The trust’s provenance and privacy: what the filings establish
Epstein’s will, signed August 8, 2019, created “The 1953 Trust” to receive essentially all assets described in the pour‑over will, but the trust instrument and its beneficiary schedule have not been made public, a point repeatedly noted in news and court filings and emphasized by legal commentators as the reason beneficiaries remain opaque [5] [3] [6].
2. The small circle that court filings do name
Court documents and probate filings identify two of Epstein’s closest advisers—Richard Kahn (his accountant) and Darren Indyke (his personal lawyer)—as both co-executors of the estate and as beneficiaries of the estate/trust, and they have been publicly described in filings as fiduciaries with control over trust administration [1] [2] [4].
3. Karyna Shuliak and the lone romantic partner named in public filings
At least one former romantic partner, identified in reporting and in a court document as Karyna Shuliak, is named in filings as a known beneficiary of the trust, making her one of the few individuals explicitly tied to potential distributions [1].
4. Suggested or potential beneficiaries: what filings imply but do not prove
Analysts and some court records have suggested Epstein’s brother Mark as a potential heir and referenced classes of undisclosed beneficiaries that could include charities, entities he controlled, or other associates, but these remain speculative because the trust’s beneficiary schedule has not been produced in open court [3] [5].
5. Litigation disclosures: allegations tied to beneficiaries/fiduciaries
Federal and Virgin Islands court filings have exposed contentious allegations against the co-executors/beneficiaries, with survivor lawsuits accusing Indyke and Kahn of roles that plaintiffs say facilitated trafficking and asking courts to hold them accountable; judges have allowed core sex‑trafficking claims to proceed in some cases, and attorneys for survivors (including firms led by David Boies) continue to press claims against the estate and its co-executors [3] [1] [7].
6. Financial revelations affecting who could get paid
Probate filings and subsequent reporting show the estate’s value has fluctuated—with assets listed in public filings and an unexpected tax refund increasing estate resources—but the mechanics of trust distributions are stalled: creditors’ and survivors’ claims must be resolved and a final accounting approved by the probate court before beneficiaries named in the trust can receive funds [1] [2] [5] [3].
7. Opacity, competing agendas, and the limits of the record
Multiple sources emphasize the deliberate privacy built into the trust and the strategic incentives for insiders to keep beneficiary lists private; at the same time, survivor attorneys and some government actors have incentives to pry the trust open to secure compensation—however, because neither the trust instrument nor a complete beneficiary schedule has been produced, reporting must rely on the fragments that court filings and filings’ descriptions reveal rather than a public, definitive beneficiary roster [5] [6] [3].