Following the resignation of Emirati billionaire and Earthshot founding partner Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem from DP World after revelations that he emailed Jeffrey Epstein, including sending him a tour video, fresh scrutiny has fallen on the former CEO and his connections to Prince William and royal-linked charities.
Attention has returned to a 2016 tour of the company’s London Gateway port by Prince William and DP World’s role in United for Wildlife, the conservation charity founded by William through The Royal Foundation to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. Emails released years later show that Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem contacted Jeffrey Epstein shortly after that visit. What once appeared to be routine corporate cooperation now raises broader questions about judgment, vetting standards, and the reputational risks that follow high-profile partnerships.
DP World and the United for Wildlife Taskforce
DP World did not merely appear as a casual supporter of Prince William’s charity, United for Wildlife. The company held a visible role in the transport taskforce created under The Royal Foundation. It stood alongside banks and airlines that pledged to monitor trade routes and share intelligence on wildlife crime.
In March 2016, Prince William toured DP World’s London Gateway facility with senior executives and political figures, turning the visit into a public endorsement of both the company and the initiative. Official press material framed the moment as progress against trafficking and a sign of global cooperation.
By 2023, The Royal Foundation and UNODC announced a landmark partnership to tackle the global illegal wildlife trade. The UNODC received support in this effort from DP World, a long-standing advocate for stronger action against wildlife trafficking.
With the release of Jeffrey Epstein–related emails by the DOJ, the timing now gives the public a clearer view of what was happening behind the scenes. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem emailed Jeffrey Epstein soon after the event, referencing the meeting and a Buckingham Palace function. What once read as corporate pride now appears to show poor discretion. Especially given Epstein’s already damaged public reputation at the time. The question now remains whether William knew about Sulayem’s ties to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, or whether he, like his uncle, Prince Andrew, chose to overlook them.
The Epstein Connection and Ongoing Contact
Unsealed records suggest the communication did not stop at a single message. Email exchanges reportedly continued well after 2016, long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction had made him a widely recognised liability in public and corporate circles. No criminal allegation stems directly from these messages, but the issue shifts toward judgment rather than legality. DP World’s simultaneous status as a founding partner of the Earthshot Prize further amplified scrutiny. This is due to the fact that it tied the company to multiple royal-linked environmental campaigns at once. The overlap raises doubts about how thoroughly corporate partners were assessed before gaining visibility beside royal branding. Continued contact with a figure already associated with a scandal does not read as oversight. It reads as indifference to reputational consequences.
Related Stories
Partnerships, Perception, and Public Accountability
The Epstein files are causing reputational fallout around the world and exposing how closely elites often overlap. Prince Andrew’s past conduct has been widely reported for years. However, the renewed document releases have led to growing calls for him to answer questions from US authorities. The spotlight, however, is no longer focused on him alone. Prince William’s connections to individuals later linked to Jeffrey Epstein have raised questions about judgment and vetting, especially when those same names appear alongside royal charities and major donors. His Earthshot charity has also faced criticism over financial ties to a bank associated with fossil fuel investment, while one donor has been identified in Epstein-related files, intensifying scrutiny of its partnerships.
Those links now have direct consequences. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem’s role as an Earthshot donor and founder has reportedly triggered a complaint to the Charity Commission. So what began as a reputational issue has become a regulatory one. William’s recent overseas trips, often presented as diplomacy or sustainability outreach, face criticism when they appear to improve image rather than address uncomfortable connections. At the same time, local councils question the rising cost of royal visits and delayed reimbursements, which adds a financial layer to the debate. Each new disclosure or funding dispute fuels the sense that transparency arrives only after public pressure builds, and that perception is shifting how many people view the monarchy.
Embed from Getty ImagesDiscover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Earthshot hypocrisy at its usual worst.
Kensington Palace is displaying ivory, despite William’s public stance on wildlife protection. Kensington Palace has continued to exhibit priceless ivory artefacts even though Prince William has spent more than a decade positioning himself as a global advocate against the ivory trade.
This directly contradicts a 2019 statement from William claiming he had “ensured there is no ivory from the collection at Kensington Palace.” The Times also reported that ivory artefacts remain on display despite William’s earlier pledge to destroy royal ivory holdings.
He also pops here and there in his carbon-emitting, gas guzzling private helicopter and rents out illegal, non-conforming cottages on his Duchy of Cornwall estate where tenants have to burn coal to keep warm but whose rent contributes to his half a million pounds a week tax free income from the Duchy.