The European Parliament voted on 9 March 2024 to push for stricter regulation of citizenship‑by‑investment (CBI) and residency‑by‑investment (RBI) schemes across the EU, with an immediate ban on Russian applicants. The resolution, authored by Dutch MEP Sophie Enfeld, calls on the European Commission to draft legislation that would phase out CBI programmes and impose tighter controls on RBI schemes.
What the vote entails
- Outcome: Overwhelming majority in favour of limiting CBI/RBI programmes, specifically targeting Russian nationals.
- Next step: The European Commission must translate the resolution into binding EU law; the measures are not yet in force.
- Key demand: Enforce “strict regulations” and eventually “phase out” CBI programmes, while tightening oversight of RBI schemes.
How CBI and RBI programmes work
| Category | Typical basis for entry | Common requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Spouse/Family | Marriage to a citizen or resident | Proof of relationship |
| Education/Medical | Study or treatment in the host country | Enrollment confirmation, sometimes medical documentation |
| Employment | Skilled‑worker or specialist | Job offer, qualification proof |
| Entrepreneurship | Starting a business | Business plan, investment amount |
| Investment | Direct capital injection (real estate, bonds, company shares) | Minimum investment (e.g., €150 000–€650 000), source‑of‑funds verification, sometimes a donation to the state |
All routes involve a screening process that usually includes:
- Criminal‑record check
- Proof of financial means or investment
- Health insurance or medical exam (varies by country)
- Verification of the genuine nature of the claim (marriage, job, investment)
Common criticisms and the rebuttal
| Criticism | What the EU report cites | Counter‑argument |
|---|---|---|
| Facilitates corruption & money laundering | Lack of transparency leads to “weak vetting” and “insufficient due‑diligence.” | Vetting standards are comparable across visa types; investment‑based visas often have stricter financial scrutiny than work or student permits. |
| Donations are “laundered” money | Funds may be used to mask illicit proceeds. | Donations are a direct contribution to the state budget; they do not inherently cleanse illegal money any more than any other foreign investment. |
| Discriminatory targeting of Russians | Ban on Russian applicants framed as protecting EU citizens and Ukrainians. | Excluding applicants solely on the basis of birthplace mirrors racial discrimination; the same security checks apply to all nationalities. |
| Limited economic benefit | Property purchases may not generate sufficient local impact. | Direct cash contributions (e.g., €150 000) can fund public infrastructure in small economies where tax revenue is limited. |
Practical considerations for prospective applicants
- Investment size: Programs vary; Portugal’s “Golden Visa” requires a €280 000 real‑estate purchase, while some Caribbean schemes accept a €150 000 donation.
- Residency obligations: Many EU programmes impose a minimum stay (often 7 days per year) or a rental requirement; some, like Malta’s, allow the applicant to spend only a short period in the country.
- Language & integration: Language tests are typically required for citizenship, not for residency. Countries may choose to impose integration requirements on any route, but most RBI schemes waive them for investors.
- Taxation: Investors may become tax residents if they meet the fiscal residency criteria (e.g., >183 days per year). Some programmes allow “tax‑free” status while still granting residency.
- Due‑diligence: Applicants must provide source‑of‑funds documentation; the depth of scrutiny can differ between programmes, with some EU visas demanding more extensive background checks than others.
Policy implications
- Regulatory focus: The EU’s concern centers on transparency and the ability to prevent illicit funds from entering the bloc, rather than the mere existence of investment pathways.
- Discrimination risk: Targeting applicants by nationality could conflict with anti‑discrimination principles embedded in EU law.
- Economic rationale: Small states rely on CBI/RBI revenues to fund public services; eliminating these streams could force them to raise taxes or cut services.
- Design alternatives: Some suggest shifting from pure donation models to “employment‑linked” contributions (e.g., hiring local staff and spending a set amount annually), akin to Singapore’s approach, to ensure direct economic impact.
Bottom line
The March 9 vote signals a political push to tighten EU oversight of investment‑driven immigration, especially concerning Russian nationals. While concerns about money laundering and corruption are not unfounded, the mechanisms for vetting applicants are largely similar across all visa categories. The real policy debate is whether the benefits—direct fiscal contributions and controlled migration—outweigh the perceived risks, and how best to structure programmes to maximise transparency and economic return without resorting to nationality‑based discrimination.
