Saint Lucia’s citizenship by investment program faces a confidentiality issue after a government publication listed the full names of more than a hundred people who obtained citizenship through the government bond option. The names appeared alongside investment amounts and maturity dates in fiscal appendix tables, raising questions about how confidential the program is in law and practice.
What Was Published
A Saint Lucian government publication posted on an official website included the full names of more than a hundred citizenship by investment applicants who used the government bond route.
The names were listed individually as domestic debt instruments. They appeared alongside:
- Investment amounts
- Maturity dates
- Government bond details
The exposure appears to have happened because each CBI government bond is issued as a sovereign debt instrument in the applicant’s name. When the relevant department compiled a standard list of outstanding government obligations, the CBI bonds were included with other domestic debt such as Treasury bills, private placements, and regional securities.
The Citizenship by Investment Unit’s Chief Executive Officer, Mc Claude Emmanuel, said the CIU was not aware the information was being published. When asked whether the disclosure was deliberate, he said it was not.
Only Bond-Option Applicants Were Affected
The exposure affects only applicants who used the government bond option.
The other three investment routes do not create government debt instruments in the applicant’s name and do not carry the same exposure risk. These routes are:
- Donation
- Real estate
- Enterprise
The bond option is structurally different because it makes the applicant a named creditor of the state. That is what allowed the names to appear in a fiscal debt publication.
The Legal Gap on Confidentiality
Saint Lucia’s Citizenship by Investment Act No. 14 of 2015 does not contain a confidentiality provision, secrecy clause, or restriction on publishing applicant identities.
Section 24(2)(b) requires the CBI Board’s annual report to include the names, addresses, and nationalities of successful applicants.
In 2019, the Chastanet government stopped including names in CIP annual reports as an administrative policy. Allen Chastanet had publicly expressed concern about publishing names as early as 2018.
Mc Claude Emmanuel said the current government has maintained that policy and that the CIU has not placed the names of granted or denied applicants in its annual reports.
However, Section 24(2)(b) was never amended. The legal requirement to disclose names remains in the law. The current confidentiality practice is therefore administrative, not statutory.
The issue in this case was that one arm of government stopped publishing applicant names in CBI annual reports, while another arm of government listed bondholders in a fiscal publication. The CIU said it was not aware the document was being published.
Why the Disclosure Matters
Many CBI applicants come from countries where dual citizenship is restricted, prohibited, or legally sensitive.
The article identifies several countries where disclosure could create serious consequences:
- China automatically revokes nationality upon voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship.
- India does not recognize dual citizenship.
- Russia has tightened notification requirements.
- Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Singapore, Japan, and Indonesia restrict or prohibit dual citizenship in various forms.
For applicants from these jurisdictions, being named in a public government document linked to a CBI bond and a specific dollar amount could create risks, including:
- Loss of original nationality
- Professional consequences
- Legal exposure
- Personal risk
Controlled Data Sharing vs Public Disclosure
Caribbean CBI programs have moved toward more structured information sharing in response to international pressure.
In February 2023, six CBI principles agreed with the United States established common treatment of denials, mandatory interviews, financial intelligence unit checks, and coordinated suspension of Russian and Belarusian applicants.
In March 2024, a Memorandum of Agreement committed signatory states to sharing applicant information through a digital portal hosted by the JRCC in Barbados.
A proposed EC CIRA agreement would centralize biometric data and application histories through CARICOM IMPACS.
These systems involve structured sharing with vetted counterparts through regional infrastructure. The publication of applicant names in an open fiscal report is different because it made the information publicly accessible rather than limited to security or regulatory partners.
A Policy That Was Not Written Into Law
The CBI industry often operates on the assumption that investor names will not be published. In many jurisdictions, this is a practice rather than a statutory guarantee.
In Saint Lucia, the 2019 decision to stop publishing names was a deliberate policy choice. It helped shape how agents marketed the program and how applicants assessed its confidentiality.
The recent disclosure shows the weakness of relying on policy alone. A separate government department published names through a fiscal document, apparently without CIU review.
The central issue is whether a country can market CBI confidentiality to applicants from countries where dual citizenship carries legal risks when there is no statutory confidentiality protection.
CIU Response
Mc Claude Emmanuel responded on the record and confirmed that:
- The disclosure was not deliberate.
- The CIU did not know the publication would include the names.
- The Ministry of Finance was aware of the seriousness of the matter.
- The government had not ignored the issue.
- The government had taken steps to ensure it would not happen again.
- Applicants under other investment options should not expect their names to appear in future publications.
He said some affected applicants had been contacted through authorized agents.
Two questions were not answered:
- Whether previous editions of the same publication also contained CIP bondholder names.
- Whether the government had assessed the legal and personal consequences for affected individuals from countries that prohibit or restrict dual citizenship.
The government said it intended to remove the document and that the Ministry of Finance had addressed the matter. At the time referenced in the article, the document remained online.
Source article: www.imidaily.com
