Investment migration refers to obtaining citizenship or residency rights in exchange for monetary investment or other contributions to the host country. Today, investment migration is a global industry and is included in the IMMIGRATION law in the countries with the highest recognition of the UN, albeit in diverse bureaucracy and bureaucracy. While there are 12 strictly sensitive citizenship (CBI) systems lately [1], many countries offer facilitated naturalization channels that allow citizenship to be acquired under less stringent conditions. Facilitated naturalization is permitted due to the “special achievements” of applicants or the “special interest” of states. Investment residency systems (RBI) have similar paths to residency: while some RBI systems are specially designed to attract foreign investors in exchange for residency rights, many countries without an investment program factor business visas, foreign skill visas and/or other economic residences. Options
Five of the twelve formal citizenship programmes consistent with investment are in Europe, brought through Cyprus, Malta, Moldova, [2] Montenegro and Turkey. [3] On the charge, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama recently announced that Albania could also introduce an investment-to-investment citizenship program in the near future, which would bring a new investment migration program to the “old world”. Other European states, adding EU member states, are consistent with discretionary naturalization on the basis of special achievements, adding economic achievements, of the candidates. According to some reports, 22 EU Member States would accept discretionary naturalisation [4].
The number of investment programmes in Europe (particularly in EU Member States) has naturally attracted the interest of EU policy makers. The free movement enjoyed by EU citizens under EU law means that citizens of any EU Member State can settle in any other Member State, as well as in Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. [5] Therefore, a Cypriot or Maltese citizen who has received his nationality through an ordinary investment may move freely to Germany and enjoy the rights of national citizens to the fullest, adding the right to remain, settle or paint there. Therefore, the EU has a valid interest in the following developments similar to the acquisition and loss of citizenship in EU Member States.
EU establishments have many complaints about these programmes and have interaction in many discussions (and prospective legislation) to respond to them, however, this complaint and activity are one-sided. The BMI strives to balance discussions and encourages other teams to paint with them to do the same. In doing so, the integrity of the systems will be strengthened everywhere.
Criticism of the EU
Investment migration has generated strong complaints in EU establishments since the launch of the Maltese CBI programme, which triggered proactive EU participation. Since then, EU institutions and bodies have started discussions and filed many complaints about the CBI and RBI programmes. The complaints focused on the general provision of fairness and discrimination, the EU’s provision of honest cooperation, the genuine connection provision, the commodification of citizens and express corruption-like disorders, cash laundering and other corrupt activities.
In 2014, the European Parliament (EP) questioned whether the investment programmes were aligned with EU values, asking the European Commission (EC) to analyse the factor further. [6] The Special Tax3 Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion, established in March 2018, has required that all CBI and RBI programmes be eliminated in EU Member States,[7] stressing that the CBI and RBI programmes make sense dangers similar to the devaluation of EU citizenship, corruption, cash laundering, cash laundering , tax evasion The lack of adequate due diligence controls and the dubious economic sustainability and sustainability of programme investments [8] The European Parliament’s study branch (EPRS) has studied investment migration in more detail. However, EPRS ignored several applicable legal arguments similar to the issue of honest cooperation between EU Member States, the principles of fairness and discrimination in relation to citizenship and the principles of equity and discrimination.
In January 2019, the EC published its report on investment programmes, largely based on past documents from EU establishments and bodies. While acknowledging that applicants can invest in a Member State for valid reasons, the EC highlighted the dangers associated with investment migration programmes, adding cash laundering, corruption and tax evasion, as well as the option of infiltration of criminals into the EU. Following the report and through the lobbying efforts of the Investment Migration Council, the EC has established a qualified organisation of EU Member States to read about the express dangers associated with investment migration, to expand a non-unusual set of security controls in this regard and to address facets of transparency and smart governance with regard to the implementation of investment in migration programmes It also consulted with representatives of civil society and industry (adding BMI) who were given the opportunity to comment on a number of issues raised in the report.
More recently, the European Economic and Social Committee reaffirmed the position of the EP’s special tax3 committee in its opinion on investment programmes [9], calling for the phasing out of all investment programmes and urging EU Member States to abide by this advice “or provide moderate arguments and evidence not to do so”. [10] In addition, he advised that “while implementing to phase out existing systems in the EU, candidate countries are not allowed to administer CBI or RBI programmes when they join, so that no new systems are added to those that are implemented lately”. [11]
With the new MEPs and the European Commission in position for the ninth Parliament, discussions on investment migration in the EU are expected to continue in the coming years. The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) has demonstrated the establishment of a permanent subcommittee on fiscal and monetary offences (TAX4) for the 2019-2024 legislature, which can be noted as confirmation that the EP intends to continue to concentrate heavily on these mandate problems. Various intergroups, and in particular the newly created anti-corruption intergroup, are also expected to raise investment migration problems in the future.
Participation of the Migration Investment Council
The Investment Migration Council (IMC) supports discussions across civil society, governments, policy makers and industry professionals to strengthen the legal and security facets of citizenship and residency programs. Unfortunately, EU store reports are un balanced, focus too much on programme complaints and rarely take into account apparent legal benefits and arguments for investment migration. In addition, these reports are largely made up of negative stereotypes and prejudices opposed to industry, leading to unbalanced data and false conclusions. Investment migration is in fact a sensitive and highly politicized issue. This is basically due to the cash involved in the industry with (what appears to be) non-tradable goods. [12] Money makes investment investing different from other facilitated naturalization bureaucracy, such as accelerated naturalization of talented athletes or naturalization by marriage or ancestry. However, sensitivity and politics are one thing; The law is another. In the eyes of the law, citizenship and apartment through investment are perfectly legal means to obtain citizenship or apartment in the country, which is not another of other legal means of naturalization or immigration facilitated.
The BMI strives to paint a complete picture of investment migration and create a balance in discussion, interacting daily with other professional associations, governments and foreign organizations. In addition, the BMI frequently evaluates various facets of the investment migration industry through vigorous research, adding school documents, reports, forums, schooling, etc. The goal is twofold: first, the BMI seeks to improve public understanding of all facets of the investment migration industry; and second, it aims to publicize schooling and the main criteria among its members. In the pursuit of these objectives, the BMI is guided through 3 vital edicts:
1. BMI focuses primarily on the legal facets of investment migration. With regard to the acquisition of citizenship, national legislation and EU legislation are clear: citizenship problems and the criteria for obtaining citizenship remain the exclusive competence of sovereign states/EU members. [13]
As a result, the BMI addressed the problems raised through EU establishments that violate the sovereign rights of states to make a decision similar to the acquisition of citizenship. In addition, the BMI participated constructively in the European Commission’s debate on investment migration and held meetings to raise awareness among EU decision-makers and other decision-makers about their perspectives and work.
2. In addition to studies and analyses, investment migration remains largely an unregulated industry. Setting minimum industry-wide criteria would help create a non-unusual regulatory framework that would address the dangers associated with investment migration.
The BMI has begun to close the hole created by the lack of criteria. The BMI, in coordination with BDO, Exiger and Refinitiv, has formed a due diligence executing organization to review the prestige of due diligence and explore the prospect of minimum criteria in the investment migration sector. An independent study expert group, mandatory through BMI, relied on the wisdom of industry to conduct independent studies on these problems and produce two reports [14].
3. Any objective assessment of investment migration programmes includes all facets and actors applicable in the sector.
The BMI has called on EU establishments to involve them in discussions and other activities similar to the CBI and RBI programmes. Challenges and disruptions can only be effectively solved if policy makers and stakeholders are willing to listen to all arguments and objectively assess all applicable facets of the industry. BMI is open to other revisions and arguments that would contribute to a healthy and regulated industry.
Finally, all actors running in the investment migration fund, inside or outside Europe, deserve to be enrolled in ICD’s efforts and paints in combination to end the abuses of investment migration programmes and maintain the most important criteria for the sector.
[1] These come with 12 formal citizenship systems specially designed to attract foreign investors presented by: Antigua and Barbuda, Cyprus, Dominica, Grenada, Jordan, Upper, Moldova, Montenegro, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Turkey and Vanuatu
[2] On 21 June 2020, the Moldovan Parliament repealed the Citizenship Act through investment, ending the programme before it began.
[3] “Europe” is not only a matter of geography, but also a historical, political and cultural concept. For example, Cyprus is geographically located in Asia, however, it is European and is a full EU MEMBER state (with the exception of northern Cyprus, which is not part of the EU); Turkey’s highest is in Asia, however, the country is a candidate for EU membership; Greenland is a geographical component of North America, but it is politically and culturally related to Europe, to name a few examples.
[4] EUI Globalcit Database: Data in ‘A24 Mode, Special Achievements’, available at: accessed February 11, 2020. Since 1 February 2020, the UK is not a component of the EU and has been treated as a member of the EU State for the purposes of this analysis. However, it should be noted that the UK Tier 1 Investor Visa Programme attracts a large number of applicants from around the world.
[5] For more details on the loose movement of all nationalities, see Dimitry Kochenov and Justin Lindeboom (eds), “Kolin and Kochenov’s Quality of Nationality Index Nationalities of the World in 2018” (Hart, Oxford 2020).
[6] European Parliament’s solution of 16 January 2014 on the sale of EU citizenship (2013/2995 (RSP).
[7] By. 91, Report of the Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion (2018/2121 (INI)).
[8] By. 87, Report of the Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Evasion (2018/2121 (INI)).
[9] EESC Communication, “EU Citizenship and Investor Residence Systems” SOC / 618-EESE-2019 (EESC Opinion).
[10] Paragraph 1.1. EESC Notice.
[11] Section 4.2.2. EESC Opinion.
[12] Christian H. Kolin, Ius Doni and European Law (Brill Nijhoff, Leiden / Boston 2019) 48.
[13] This does not take into account the growing importance of EU legislation with respect to certain facets of citizenship problems, such as the loss of EU citizenship. The sovereignty of states and respect for their freedom in the citizenship criteria are of paramount importance and are a starting point for any discussion of investment migration.
[14] The two reports on ‘Due Diligence in Investment Migration Current Applications and Trends’ and ‘Due Diligence in Investment Migration Best Approach and Minimum Standard Recommendations’ are available at last accessed 11 February 2020.
I am the first CEO of the Investment Migration Council (IMC). We are a global forum for investment migration, combining key players.
I am the first CEO of the Investment Migration Council (IMC). We are a global forum for investment migration, combining the main players in the field. The BMI sets global standards, provides ratings, and publishes on-demand studies on investment migration for governments, policymakers, foreign organizations, and the public. It is a non-profit organization in Switzerland, with prestige of special advice in the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations since 2019 and registered with the Joint Secretariat of the Transparency Register of the European Commission (ID: 337639131420-09).