It is the must-have accessory for every self-respecting 21st-century oligarch, and a good many mere multimillionaires: a second — and sometimes a third or even a fourth — passport.
Israel, which helped Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich out of a spot of bother last week by granting him citizenship after delays in renewing his expired UK visa, offers free nationality to any Jewish person wishing to move there.
However, there are as many as two dozen other countries, including several in the EU, where someone with the financial resources of the Chelsea soccer club owner could acquire a new nationality for a price: the global market in citizenship-by-investment programs — or CIPs as they are commonly known — is booming.
The schemes’ specifics — and costs, ranging from as little as US$100,000 to as much as 2.5 million euros (US$2.93 million) — might vary, but not the principle: In essence, wealthy people invest money in property or businesses, buy government bonds or simply donate cash directly in exchange for citizenship and a passport.
Some do not offer citizenship for sale outright, but run schemes usually known as “golden visas” that reward investors with residence permits that can eventually lead — typically after a period of five years — to citizenship.
The programs are not new, but are growing exponentially, driven by wealthy private investors from emerging market economies including China, Russia, India, Vietnam, Mexico and Brazil, as well as the Middle East and more recently Turkey.
The first launched in 1984, a year after young, cash-strapped Saint Kitts and Nevis won independence from the UK. Slow to take off, it accelerated fast after 2009 when passport-holders from the Caribbean island nation were granted visa-free travel to the 26-nation Schengen Area.
For poorer countries, such schemes can be a boon, lifting them out of debt and even becoming their biggest export. The IMF reckons that Saint Kitts and Nevis earned 14 percent of its GDP from its CIP in 2014, and other estimates put the figure as high as 30 percent of state revenue.
Wealthier countries such as Canada, the UK and New Zealand have also seen the potential of CIPs (the US EB-5 program is worth about US$4 billion a year to the economy), but sell their schemes more around the attractions of a stable economy and safe investment environment than on freedom of movement.
Experts from the many companies, such as Henley and Partners, CS Global and Apex, now specializing in CIPs and advertising their services online and in inflight magazines, say that unlike Abramovich, relatively few of their clients buy citizenship to move immediately to the country concerned.
For most, the acquisition represents an insurance policy. With nationalism, protectionism, isolationism and fears of financial instability on the rise around the world, the state of the industry serves as an effective barometer of global political and economic uncertainty.
However, CIPs are not without their critics. For example, Malta has come under sustained fire from Brussels and other EU capitals for its program run by Henley and Partners, which saw more than 800 wealthy individuals gain citizenship in the three years following its launch in 2014, according to the IMF.
Critics said the scheme was undermining the concept of EU citizenship, posing potential major security risks and providing a possible route for wealthy individuals — for example from Russia — with opaque income streams to dodge sanctions in their own countries.
Several other CIPs have come under investigation for fraud, while equality campaigners increasingly argue the moral case that it is simply wrong to grant automatic citizenship to ultra-high net worth individuals when the less privileged must wait their turn — and, in many cases, be rejected.
The best-known — and cheapest — CIP schemes are in the Caribbean, where the warm climate, low investment requirements and undemanding residency obligations have long proved popular.
Five countries currently offer CIPs, often giving visa-free travel to the EU, and have cut their prices to attract investors as they seek funds to help them rebuild after last year’s hurricanes. In Saint Kitts and Nevis, a passport can be had for a US$150,000 donation to the hurricane relief fund, while Antigua, Barbuda and Granada have cut their fees to US$100,000, the same level as St Lucia and Dominica.
Almost half of the EU’s member states offer some kind of investment residency or citizenship program leading to a highly prized EU passport, which typically allows visa-free travel to between 150 and 170 countries.
Malta’s citizenship-for-sale scheme requires a 675,000 euro donation to the national development fund and a 350,000 euro property purchase. In Cyprus, the cost is a 2 million euro investment in real estate, stocks, government bonds or Cypriot businesses (although the number of new passports is to be capped at 700 a year following criticism). In Bulgaria, 500,000 euros gets you residency, and about 1 million euros over two years plus a year’s residency gets you fast-track citizenship.
Investors can get residency rights leading longer-term to citizenship — usually after five years, and subject to passing relevant language and other tests — for 65,000 euros in Latvia (equities), 250,000 euros in Greece (property), 350,000 euros or 500,000 euros (property or a small business investment fund) or 500,000 euros in Spain (property, and you have to wait 10 years to apply for citizenship).
REST OF THE WORLD
Thailand offers several “elite residency” packages costing US$3,000 to $4,000 a year for up to 20 years residency, some including health checkups, spa treatments and VIP handling from government agencies.
The US’ EB-5 visa — particularly popular with Chinese investors — costs between US$500,000 and US$1 million depending on the type of investment and gives green card residency that can eventually lead to a passport.
Canada closed its C$800,000 (US$619,157) federal investment immigration program in 2014, but now has a similar residency scheme, costing about C$1 million, for “innovative start-ups,” as well as regional schemes in, for example, Quebec.
Australia requires an investment of A$1.5 million (US$1.14 million) and a net worth of A$2.5m for residency that could, eventually, lead to citizenship, and New Zealand — popular with Silicon Valley types — an investment of up to NZ$10 million (US$7.02 million).
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis. Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections. The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered
Early last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman, winning with a seven-to-three majority over pro-Beijing former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a two-time KMT vice chairman. Chiang’s victory has been interpreted as a generational change and the beginning of major party reform. In his inauguration speech on March 9, Chiang did not mention the so-called “1992 consensus.” Analysts believe that his most urgent task is to attract more young people to the party and win voter trust, and that he does not care about Beijing’s reaction. After joining the party chairmanship by-election, Chiang made his