Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and Jeffrey Epstein: What the Record Shows About Their Connection
Fast facts
Who is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem?
An Emirati billionaire and long-time chairman and chief executive of DP World, a global ports and logistics company based in Dubai.Where his name appears in the “Epstein files”:
His name appears in newly released Epstein email caches, in reporting on Epstein’s calendars, and in investigative pieces about Epstein’s business network.Type of contact documented:
Emails show discussions about technology ideas (including “smart shoes” with GPS), political invitations involving Donald Trump’s inauguration, and introductions to figures like Steve Bannon.Money transfers:
One financial record shows that in July 2017 bin Sulayem paid Epstein $6,200, and the next day Epstein sent the same amount back to bin Sulayem.Island purchase story:
Reporting on Epstein’s purchase of Great St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands describes how he used a company structure that made it appear the buyer was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, a wealthy Dubai businessman, when the real buyer was Epstein himself.Visits and meetings:
Media accounts based on Epstein’s calendars and notes say that bin Sulayem was scheduled to visit Epstein’s New York townhouse on several occasions between 2011 and 2014.Criminal status:
There is no public record that Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem has been charged with, or formally investigated for, Epstein’s crimes. The controversy focuses on judgment, proximity and business conversations, not on proven participation in abuse.
Who is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem?
Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem is a prominent Emirati businessman from a leading Dubai family. He is best known for running DP World, the state-linked ports and logistics giant that operates terminals across the globe. Over decades he has also held senior roles in other major Dubai entities and has been closely tied to the emirate’s economic expansion.
His position places him at the crossroads of global trade, sovereign wealth and state-backed infrastructure projects. As a result, he moves in circles of powerful investors, political leaders and strategic advisers. This same world of high-level business and politics is where Jeffrey Epstein tried to market himself as a connector and informal deal-maker.
The Great St. James island purchase and the “front buyer” story
One of the clearest links between Epstein and bin Sulayem involves Epstein’s purchase of Great St. James, an island near Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Investigative reporting on that deal describes the following pattern:
In negotiations over the island, Epstein used an opaque limited-liability company.
In documents and discussions, it was made to appear that the real buyer was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, described as a wealthy Dubai businessman with connections to the ruling family.
A purchase price of roughly $22.5 million was reported.
Behind that structure, the beneficial owner was actually Epstein.
This arrangement made it look as if a high-profile foreign investor was acquiring the island, even though Epstein was the one in control. Public reporting does not show that bin Sulayem himself completed the purchase, signed closing documents, or took title. Instead, his name appears as the figure whose identity was used in the structure that Epstein and his advisers presented.
The reporting does not demonstrate that bin Sulayem directed the island acquisition or that he knowingly took part in any wrongdoing in that transaction. It does, however, place his name inside a complex real-estate story centered on Epstein’s efforts to expand his holdings in the Virgin Islands.
Emails about “smart shoes” and technology ideas
Newly released emails from the House Oversight trove show that Epstein and bin Sulayem exchanged ideas about technology products.
One set of messages from 2011 describes bin Sulayem writing to Epstein about shoes fitted with GPS tracking devices, sometimes referred to in commentary as “smart shoes.”
From the available descriptions, the emails include:
A pitch or discussion of footwear embedded with tracking technology
Epstein’s responses engaging with the concept
These exchanges are notable because they show bin Sulayem reaching out to Epstein with a business or investment idea rather than only social small talk. The emails, as described in news summaries and images of the messages, stop short of documenting a completed joint venture or signed agreement.
There is no public evidence that a commercial product or formal partnership between Epstein and bin Sulayem resulted from the “smart shoes” emails. They do, however, illustrate that Epstein was treated by bin Sulayem as someone worth consulting on potential ventures.
Political access: Trump’s inauguration and U.S. power circles
Another cluster of emails connects Epstein, bin Sulayem and U.S. political insiders.
In January 2017, as Donald Trump prepared to take office, messages show:
Epstein telling bin Sulayem that it “might be worth it” to accept an invitation from Tom Barrack, a close Trump ally, to attend Trump’s inauguration.
Bin Sulayem writing back to ask whether it would be possible to shake hands with Trump.
Epstein suggesting that bin Sulayem call him to discuss further.
These emails reveal that Epstein was positioning himself as an adviser on how an Emirati businessman might navigate an invitation to a major U.S. political event. They also suggest that bin Sulayem saw value in Epstein’s perceived access to Trump’s circle.
Later reporting on the same trove of emails describes Epstein giving blunt opinions about Trump’s character in messages to bin Sulayem, portraying Trump as someone who tells different people different things and is close to no one.
Again, nothing in these exchanges shows illegal conduct. The messages instead highlight Epstein’s role as an informal fixer or guide for foreign business leaders who wanted to understand or approach U.S. power.
The Steve Bannon introduction and comments about Trump
Emails also indicate that Epstein tried to connect bin Sulayem with Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist.
Coverage of the correspondence reports that:
Epstein proposed introducing United Arab Emirates businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem to Bannon in 2018.
Epstein told bin Sulayem that “we have become friends; you will like him,” or words to that effect.
Bin Sulayem reportedly replied that “Trump doesn’t like him,” referring to tension between Trump and Bannon.
This exchange is important because it shows Epstein using his personal relationship with Bannon as a kind of asset. For bin Sulayem, it presents him as someone assessing the value of that connection through the lens of his understanding of Trump’s preferences.
The emails do not show whether a meeting between bin Sulayem and Bannon actually took place. They do, however, document Epstein’s attempt to broker such an introduction.
Payments, scheduled visits, and banking relationships
Financial records reported in 2025 provide another piece of the picture. In July 2017, a record shows:
Bin Sulayem paid Epstein $6,200.
The following day, Epstein paid the same amount back to bin Sulayem.
The available reporting does not spell out the purpose of this money loop. It might relate to shared expenses, a test transfer, or some other arrangement; the documentation simply records that the two men moved identical sums back and forth on consecutive days.
Separately, a review of Epstein’s calendars and visitor schedules describes bin Sulayem as someone who was scheduled to visit Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in the early 2010s. Those notes place him among the many business and political figures who passed through Epstein’s New York base during that period.
Other reporting on Epstein’s work as a kind of informal “client development” operator for major banks notes that he tried to connect financial institutions and global elites, and mentions bin Sulayem as one of several wealthy figures in these networks.
None of these details, taken alone, prove a deep business partnership. Together, they indicate regular contact and shared interest in deals, access and influence.
What is not in the public record
Despite the volume of recent reporting, there are key limits to what is known:
There is no public evidence that bin Sulayem was involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes.
There are no known criminal charges linking bin Sulayem to Epstein’s offenses.
Public sources do not document joint shell companies or co-owned investment vehicles where both men are clearly named as principals.
Flight logs and the best-known “black book” compilations have not, so far, highlighted bin Sulayem as a frequent travel companion, though he may appear in lesser-known records.
Some commentary describes the relationship as “close ties,” but that phrase is interpretive. The raw material that is visible to the public consists of emails, calendar entries, payment records and the island-purchase structure, all of which show contact, attempted deals and efforts to leverage political access.
How to interpret this relationship
From a research standpoint, the connection between Jeffrey Epstein and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem looks like a mix of:
Business exploration: technology ideas, infrastructure-related discussions, and cross-border deal concepts.
Political access-seeking: questions about attending Trump’s inauguration, interest in meeting key U.S. figures, and Epstein’s efforts to position himself as a guide to American power.
Social and reputational proximity: scheduled visits to the Manhattan townhouse and appearance in the same elite networks that Epstein cultivated.
At the same time, the available record does not show that bin Sulayem took part in Epstein’s core criminal activities. The evidence points to a relationship grounded in money, influence and networking, rather than documented participation in abuse.
For readers and researchers, the safest and most accurate summary is:
A powerful Emirati businessman, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem appears repeatedly in Jeffrey Epstein’s emails, calendar notes, and investigative reporting. The documents show talks about business ideas, political invitations, a role in the presentation of an island purchase, and small money transfers. They do not, as of now, show that he was charged with or formally implicated in Epstein’s sexual crimes.
Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem
This research page compiles publicly available information about Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and their place in the broader Jeffrey Epstein connection graph. People may appear here either because they are mentioned in one or more evidence items (such as flight logs, emails, legal records or credible public reporting), or because reliable public sources document relationships or affiliations that link them to others in this network.
Some profiles therefore track individuals who may be several steps removed — sometimes up to six degrees of separation — from Jeffrey Epstein himself. They are included so researchers can see whether those names later recur in other documents, networks, or investigations. Listing Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem here is not, by itself, a statement of guilt or innocence.
Use the network graph, shortest-path view, and evidence links below to explore how this person connects to others in the dataset and to Jeffrey Epstein.
Wikipedia Information 
Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem is an Emirati businessman. He was the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of DP World until 13 February 2026, and the chairman of the Ports, Customs & Free Zone Corporation until February 2026. In the February 2026 public release of the Epstein files, he was named as a co-conspirator in the child sex trafficking ring led by Jeffrey Epstein; he has not been charged. He resigned from his executive positions due to his association with Epstein.
- Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem
- Jeffrey Epstein
Closest Connections
- Jeffrey Epstein — associated with — Weak
Evidence
- Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem (Other) 0
Click a name to highlight 1° / 2° / 3° rings. Edge thickness indicates connection strength. Use Tab to focus and arrow keys to navigate.
The presence of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem in this dataset should be understood in a research and mapping context only. The project traces publicly documented relationships and degrees of separation — sometimes several steps removed — to see whether particular names recur across different evidence sets over time.
A person may therefore appear here because they are directly mentioned in documents, because they have a publicly reported relationship or affiliation with others in the network, or because they sit several links away in a chain of acquaintances. Inclusion alone does not imply criminal conduct, moral judgment, or endorsement.