Living in another country often requires a job or a place to study. But in some countries, residence can be obtained by investing a large sum, a system known as a “golden visa”. Some countries even offer citizenship or a passport directly in exchange for investment.
According to the Investment Migration Council, more than 80 countries run some form of programme offering residence or citizenship through investment, which has spread mainly because of wealthy people’s interest in moving abroad.
Why people take golden visas
Many are drawn to these programmes to settle abroad, give their children a better education, live somewhere safe, find business opportunities or escape political and social instability. Some seek residence elsewhere for tax or lifestyle reasons. Interest is especially high among wealthy Chinese, though people from many countries take part.
Why they are controversial
The biggest question about golden visas is how safe and fair it is to let a foreigner live in a country in exchange for money alone. The European Union and other bodies have long feared that such schemes can enable money laundering, tax evasion or investment of illicit funds.
In 2018, a scam involving Chinese investors in Greece came to light, in which some Greek property dealers were accused of selling property to investors above market prices; part of the money was later returned.
Europe tightens the rules
Because of these concerns, the European Union moved in 2022 to end member states’ golden passport schemes and impose strict limits on golden visas, greatly narrowing the scope for gaining citizenship through investment in Europe.
Greece has kept its golden visa programme but in 2023 raised the minimum property investment in some popular areas to €500,000. Opposition parties there want the scheme scrapped altogether.
Spain and others pull out
Spain has also decided to scrap its golden visa programme, which gave residence to non-EU nationals investing €500,000, with significant participation by wealthy Russians and Chinese. Because much of the investment went into property, there are complaints that it pushed up local house prices and rents, causing resentment among residents. Ireland and the United Kingdom have also scrapped such schemes.
Overall, opportunities for migration through investment are gradually shrinking. Although the programmes are financially profitable for governments, growing concerns over money laundering, housing shortages and social effects are leading many countries to weigh their pros and cons afresh.
বাংলায় মূল প্রতিবেদন পড়ুন · Read the original Bengali report