Which entities or trusts control Epstein's remaining assets and who are the trustees?

1. The formal vehicles: a probate estate plus the “1953 Trust”

Epstein signed a pour‑over will and a revocable living trust commonly referred to in analysis as the “1953 Trust” two days before his death, a structure designed to move assets into the trust through probate as part of normal estate planning ^{[1] [4]}. Legal commentary and practitioner summaries note that assets remaining subject to probate versus assets validly titled into the trust have been at the center of litigation, because claims from trafficking victims and creditors challenged transfers made shortly before his death as potentially fraudulent conveyances ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Who is in control: co‑executors who double as co‑trustees

Public reporting and estate‑planning summaries identify longtime Epstein lawyer Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Khan as the estate’s co‑executors and as co‑trustees of the trust, placing them in the primary operational roles overseeing sales, distributions and defense of the estate against claims ^{[2] [1]}. The will itself contemplates executors who may also occupy the office of trustee and specifies their fiduciary duties and compensation in the event of probate administration, language that underpins why Indyke and Khan are central figures in control ^[1].

3. How litigation and settlements reshaped control and the asset pool

Victims’ lawsuits, creditor claims and related challenges sought to undo last‑minute conveyances and compelled liquidations of assets, shrinking the headline value of the estate from widely reported estimates around $600 million to roughly $145–150 million after sales, settlements and a significant estate tax refund ^{[3] [2]}. Analysts and legal observers have flagged that distressed sales and successful claims both reduced liquid assets available for distribution and increased scrutiny of whether the trust was ever fully funded, a factual dispute that determines what remains under trustee control versus what must be paid to claimants ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Transparency gaps, ongoing review and the role of newly released documents

Congressional document dumps and ongoing investigations have expanded the public record—House Oversight released large document troves from the Epstein estate in late 2025—but many beneficiary identities and granular accounting remain redacted or contested, limiting certainty about final ownership and payees ^[5]. Reporting has repeatedly emphasized that while Indyke and Khan are named fiduciaries, the precise list of beneficiaries and the full inventory of remaining assets are not fully in the public record and are subject to litigation and IRS review, a caveat observers must bear in mind ^{[2] [3]}.

5. What remains unsettled and why it matters

Key questions that determine ultimate control—whether the 1953 Trust was validly funded, the outcomes of lingering fraudulent‑conveyance claims, and the final allocation of proceeds after settlements and the tax refund—remain partially unresolved in available reporting, meaning that control today resides with the co‑executors/co‑trustees operating within a contested legal framework rather than with named private beneficiaries openly acknowledged in public filings ^{[4] [2]}. The combination of contested transfers, large refunds, and ongoing document releases means that while the institutional answer is clear—the estate and the 1953 Trust under co‑executors/ co‑trustees Indyke and Khan—the ultimate economic beneficiaries and the full scope of assets remain subject to legal process and further disclosure ^{[1] [5]}.