Karyna Shuliak: The Woman Who Could Inherit $100M from Epstein

Inside the DOJ Files: The Epstein–Shuliak Connection

U.S. Department of Justice documents released as part of the sprawling investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have identified Belarusian-born dentist Dr. Karyna Shuliak as a likely beneficiary of his diminished fortune. Shuliak, 37, could receive up to $100 million—including a 33-carat diamond ring—from the estate of the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019.

The newly public files, which include thousands of emails and dozens of photographs, detail a relationship that spanned nearly a decade. Epstein referred to Shuliak as his "favorite" and funded her education, travel, and family. He paid roughly $1 million to her over the years and arranged a sham marriage with a female associate in 2013 to help her secure a green card and eventual U.S. citizenship after her student visa expired.

Shuliak had moved from Belarus in 2010 on a student visa and met Epstein in 2011. Despite initially rejecting his help after reading about abuse allegations against him, she later became a central figure in his personal life—managing his properties and staff, and traveling with him. She was the last person Epstein phoned from jail before his death. The records show Epstein also used his influence and a $210,000 donation to Columbia University to secure her admission to its dental school, a move that later led the institution to demote one official and remove another from an alumni board.

Although Epstein modified his will shortly before his death to leave much of his then $600 million estate to Shuliak, the actual amount she might collect is uncertain. Victim compensation claims have already eroded the estate, which is now estimated at $120 million to $200 million, and numerous other heirs—including the children of Epstein’s brother Mark—are also named in the will.

What the Documents Reveal About Power and Exploitation

The Shuliak–Epstein Relationship: A Portrait of Control and Dependence

The documents offer an intimate look at how Epstein wielded his wealth to foster dependence. He paid for Shuliak’s dental school tuition, sent tens of thousands of dollars to her family in Belarus, and gave her a credit card. In exchange, Shuliak managed his homes, staff, and even a failed attempt to purchase a palace in Morocco. The emails show her gratitude (“you are the purest of all men”) but also hints of discomfort with his other relationships, which she once described as “a little dirty”—without expressing broader ethical concern about his abuse. This dynamic illustrates how a powerful individual can methodically blur personal and professional boundaries to create loyalty.

The Shrinking Pie: Who Really Gets Epstein’s Money?

Epstein’s estate has already paid out large sums to victims through compensation programs, shrinking its value from roughly $600 million to a fraction. As a result, Shuliak’s potential $100 million inheritance—even if legally enforceable—faces competition from other beneficiaries, including Mark Epstein’s children, each slated to receive $10 million. Legal experts might note that a will made under unusual circumstances (evidenced by a handwritten note about the ring “in contemplation of marriage”) could be challenged, though no such contest has surfaced publicly. For now, the estate remains a contested pool, with no clear payout timeline.

Columbia University’s Rapid Reckoning

The fallout at Columbia underscores how institutions can be tarnished by their associations with a donor. After the DOJ files showed that Epstein had lobbied on Shuliak’s behalf and made a $210,000 gift, the university moved to demote one official and strip another of an alumni governance role. While Columbia stated that Shuliak met academic requirements for admission, the episode exposed the vulnerability of any selective process to outside influence and prompted an internal review. The swift personnel action signals that universities are increasingly sensitive to reputational risks tied to admissions and donations, though the underlying questions about fairness will likely linger.