Blog

On January 1, 60 Minutes — an investigative programme aired by the US television company, CBS Corporation — ran a segment on ‘Citizenship by Investment Programmes’ (CIP) that are operated by several countries around the world. For reasons best known to itself, 60 Minutes focused on three Caribbean islands after paying merely a passing glance at Malta, a Mediterranean island that is part of the 28-nation European Union (EU). It let pass other countries in Europe and North America that also operate such programmes.

I believe the broadcast had no other purpose except to denigrate — if not to emasculate — the CIPs and the governments that operate them. It categorically stated that CIPs “attracted among the buyers a rogue’s gallery of scoundrels, fugitives, tax cheats, and possibly much worse”. It neglected to mention that the vast majority of CIP recipients were wealthy law-abiding persons who had been subjected to intense scrutiny by enforcement agencies before their applications were even considered.

The segment of the programme was headlined, ‘Passports for sale’. The headline contrasted sharply with the title I had given to an article on the same subject just one year before. The article I wrote was called, ‘Passports to save the economy’.

The difference in the treatment of the same subject was that, as a worker in the cause of the development of small countries, I understand the imperatives that compel governments, in adverse conditions, to seek new and creative ways to keep their economies alive and to continue to provide for their people. In the case of 60 Minutes, the reporters were not concerned about the underdevelopment and neglect that caused governments to market the most precious of all precious national assets — citizenship.

The programme 60 Minutes portrayed the CIPs in the Caribbean as a “security threat” to the US. Significantly, the programme hung that claim on an interview with only one person, albeit a former legal adviser to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland security, Peter Vincent. It passed over a comment from General John Kelly, the former head of the US Southern Command, who is slated to be the Secretary for Homeland Security in Donald Trump’s Cabinet. Kelly was quoted from a report he issued last year in which he said, “Cash for passport programmes could be exploited by criminals, terrorists or other nefarious actors.” There is a big difference between “could be exploited” and “is being exploited”.

In the interest of providing a semblance of balance, 60 Minutes did allow Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne to make the point that, in the case of his country, the names of all applicants for citizenship are screened by American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And while it did not question his assertion, or try to present any evidence to disprove it, the programme went on to state that the issuance of diplomatic passports to CIP recipients is “a gaping hole in a very effective global security architecture to prevent terrorist attacks”. The broadcast supported this assertion only by Vincent’s remarks that, “The border officials at the receiving country, even without a visa, almost always admit an individual carrying a diplomatic passport. In addition, border forces are not entitled to search the luggage of diplomats like they are for regular tourists. They simply wave them through.”

The latter statement in the context of the US is not accurate. From personal experience as an accredited ambassador to the United States, I know that holders of diplomatic passports are questioned by immigration and Customs officials, and that searches of their luggage are not prohibited unless State Department officials accompany them — a privilege accorded only to heads of Government on official business in the US or to accredited ambassadors on their first arrival in the country.

That being said, 60 Minutes did admit that the provision of diplomatic passports is not part of the CIPs. It claimed that where this has been done — and it identified specific cases in Dominica and St Kitts-Nevis — “it goes on under the table”.

The Prime Minister of Dominica Roosevelt Skerrit has since “categorically” refuted this charge. For my part, I believe diplomatic passports are important to facilitate business between governments; they ought not to be in the hands of anyone except diplomats accredited to specific countries or international agencies, and heads of government and ministers conducting official business. Unfortunately, their overuse – and probably their abuse — by a few governments has already undervalued their utility.

Where 60 Minutes let down its global audience and damaged the Caribbean is in its failure to explain why governments have turned to CIPs as a tool for economic development and social improvement. The description of these countries as “cash-starved” labels the condition without defining the cause. Why are they cash-starved? And why do they have to adopt policies to offer their cherished citizenship in return for investment?

As I pointed out in my December 2015 article, “…All of the Caribbean countries involved with citizenship by investment programmes have come to them by necessity. Poor terms of trade, vulnerability to financial downturns in North America and Europe from where most of their tourists come, declining aid, persistent natural disasters, and no access to concessional financing from international financial institutions have forced them to be creative in raising revenues. They are all faced with fiscal deficits, high debt, and an international environment that is unresponsive to their predicament.”

If the international community provided transformative means to address the development needs of these countries and their increasing vulnerability to external shocks, such as unrelenting and persistent hurricanes and events like the 2008 global financial crisis which began in the US, they would not have to resort to offering citizenship in return for investment.

The coverage by 60 Minutes was less than fair in failing to point out that many of the governments of these countries are running a rigorous programme of scrutiny of CIP recipients precisely because they are conscious of their responsibility to other countries.

In the case of Antigua and Barbuda, Prime Minister Browne made it clear that his Government is interested only in high-worth individuals – the crème de la crème, as he put it — who can pass the most stringent security checks.

Also, 60 Minutes was less than fair in not mentioning that many other countries operate programmes under which citizenship is offered in return for investment — among them the US (SA EB-5 Visa Program).

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with citizenship by investment programmes, or with their merit as a development tool; it is the rigour of their implementation that is important. And it is such rigour upon which all countries should insist.

If the stricture becomes that developing countries should not operate CIPs, an international double standard is created by which small and weak countries are again disadvantaged by the powerful.

Source: jamaicaobserver.com

An Everett developer’s guilty plea Wednesday to federal fraud charges is the latest example of abuse of the EB-5 program offering green cards to foreign investors.

Lobsang Dargey used the program to fuel his fast rise in the Puget Sound real estate industry. Now, he faces up to 10 years in federal prison and must repay investors $24 million.

Before his legal troubles began, the 43-year-old claimed to be a rags-to-riches story come true. He says he grew up dirt poor in rural Tibet, and came to the United States in 1997 with hardly a dollar to his name.

After nearly 20 years in the country, he still struggles with English, reading at a grade-school level. Yet he understands how to sell investors and public officials on development projects, including a proposed 41-story tower in Seattle. And he speaks fluent Chinese. China is home to many newly-minted millionaires who want to move to the U.S.

Dargey raised more than $150 million from Chinese nationals intent on moving to America, purportedly for his Seattle tower and a mixed-use apartment building in Everett. Yet, he now admits to using millions of dollars for other construction projects, personal shopping sprees, a luxury home and trips to casinos.

His fraud is hardly the first time criminals have used the EB-5 program, which is run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as cover. The program’s popularity has soared since the Great Recession — and so have the ranks of critics and opponents calling for extensive reforms, if not ending it outright.

The program’s defenders say it has brought billions of dollars into the country and created thousands of jobs.

The two sides appeared headed for a showdown in Congress as the EB-5 program was set to expire in late September. In the end, legislators punted, renewing the program until April and leaving it for the new Congress to resolve. The program’s name stands for Employment-Based Immigration: Fifth Preference.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, one of its leading critics, called the short-term extension “another missed opportunity” to clean up the program.

“It poses significant national security risks,” he said in December. “There are serious allegations that the program may be facilitating terrorist travel, economic espionage, money laundering and investment fraud.”

He and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, have led the charge for reforms.

In recent years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed more than a dozen lawsuits alleging fraud in EB-5 projects. That includes a lawsuit against Ariel Quiros, of Miami, and William Stenger, of Newport, Vermont, who allegedly skimmed $50 million off of $350 million that investors put into developments in Vermont.

State and federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges in a handful of cases involving EB-5 monies. Federal oversight reports in the past two years have highlighted a laundry list of shortcomings and problems.

Yet supporters, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., remain adamant that it fuels economic growth in the U.S. Developers and other proponents spent up to $3 million to block a reform bill by Grassley and Leahy, reported The New York Times.

Nearly all immigrants in the EB-5 program invest in a regional center, a private company approved by the USCIS, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The number of regional centers has shot from 11 in 2007 to 865 as of early December, including 56 in Washington.

Individuals are supposed to invest at least $1 million in a development that creates or preserves at least 10 jobs in the U.S. However, investors only have to put in $500,000 if the development is in a low-employment area.

But the rules governing how low-employment areas are drawn up are so lax that developers can combine an upscale neighborhood with poor areas that are, in at least one case, miles away and across a river. That happened with the Battery Maritime Building in Manhattan. The investment area avoided rich neighborhoods nearby but included low-income areas across the East River in Brooklyn.

It is “gerrymandering,” Grassley said in 2015

Immigrants who put money into a regional center are passive investors. They have no active role in the development.

Dargey followed the typical process. First, he set up a regional center — Path America SnoCo — associated with his proposed Potala Place, a mixed-use apartment building in Everett. Then he sought investors. He went to China, the source of the vast majority of EB-5 investors, to get backers.

Investors cut him a check, which went into escrow. Then they applied for a two-year temporary visa to live in the U.S. Once approved, the money was released from escrow to Dargey, who was supposed to use all of it for the development.

At the end of the two-year period, investors apply to the USCIS for permanent residency. Their petitions are supposed to be approved based on whether the project actually created jobs.

Yet, Dargey’s own actions, documented in his plea agreement with federal prosecutors, underscore some of the procedure’s shortcomings. After misusing investors’ money and substantially changing the approved business plan, he falsified documents to hide those actions from the federal government.

While he lied to investors, lenders and authorities, spent money on himself and other projects, and then covered it up by borrowing more money, he did leave behind a building — Potala Place — in Everett. Its ground floor retail space is still unfinished.

His participation in the program ended in August 2015, when the SEC filed a lawsuit accusing him of fraud. A criminal investigation commenced at the same time, culminating in Wednesday’s guilty plea to two charges — one of wire fraud and one of concealing information from federal authorities.

It is not clear if his investors will be able to stay or have to return to China, though. Immigration officials ended his companies’ involvement in the EB-5 program, saying that Dargey’s criminal activity negated the projects’ job-creating benefits. That decision is being appealed.

The EB-5 program’s head, Nick Colucci, acknowledged some of its shortcomings while speaking at a conference in Miami last July.

“As in any other financial sector, self-policing is vital to the integrity of the program,” he said.

Nonetheless, his office will work with law enforcement and the SEC to root out bad actors, he said.

Responding to critics, USCIS has overhauled its oversight of the EB-5 program in recent years. Colucci’s staff has grown nearly tenfold since then, but as of last year, it still only had two auditors to comb through developments’ books.

Fraud and other crime must be stamped out of the EB-5 program, he said at the Miami conference. They harm “not only investors and communities but also, I would add, could jeopardize the very existence of the program.”

Source: heraldnet.com

Residency-by-investment programs are an attractive option for some HNW individuals, but may be designed to the detriment of the country in which the program is available.

According to our 2016 Global Wealth Managers Survey, 18.7% of total HNW wealth is held offshore. HNW individuals may invest in markets outside their country of origin for several reasons, such as geographic diversification and access to a better range of investments.

Offshore investments can also be driven by wealthy investors seeking to live outside their country of origin. Whether to gain access to a larger trading bloc (such as the EU) or provide their family with a better quality of life, obtaining residency of more than country can be beneficial to HNW individuals. Many countries offer programs which grant residency to individuals who invest a specified amount into the country. This investment can take many forms, which in many cases contributes to the country’s economy, property market, or even culture. For example, Portugal’s residency-by-investment program allocates a portion of the funds to scientific and technological research, as well as refurbishment projects for national heritage buildings. These residency-by-investment programs can be rewarding for individuals who participate because of the ability to help improve the country, whether through job creation or quality of life.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for all investment programs. In 2011 Hungary introduced a residency bond program whereby wealthy foreigners can obtain a permanent residency permit from the Hungarian government in exchange for an investment of €300,000 into the country’s debt securities. Boldizsár Nagy, an associate law professor at Central European University, has authored a report that argues that the program had minimal impact on Hungary. In conjunction with the Investment Migration Council and Transparency International, This, in turn, did little to help the country as a whole and contributed less than 0.5% to financing state debt.

While the Hungarian residency bond program was not created to improve any aspect of the country’s economic or financial condition, there is a responsibility on behalf of governments to seek solutions for bettering the lives of residents. Residency-by-investment programs should be designed so that they are of benefit to the investors and the country for which the program is offered.

At the same time, many HNW individuals care about how the money they’ve invested is used beyond the process of granting residency. With a number of residency programs available, investors are likely to favor those that can have a meaningful and positive impact on the country in which the residency is offered. Wealth managers should recognize this need and make sure they fully inform their clients about their options and the consequences of their choices.

Source: verdictfinancial.com

Prime Minister Mackenzie King was the first Canadian citizen. On January 3rd 1947, at Canada’s Supreme Court in Ottawa, he took the oath. Yesterday, 26 new Canadians did the same, also in the Supreme Court.

70 years, and a couple of revisions later, people are waiting in queues around the world, eager for the opportunity.

“To provide an underlying community of status for all of our people in this country that will help to bind them together as Canadians.”

It was Member of Parliament, Paul Martin Sr. who was then Secretary of State, that introduced the bill in 1946.

Heather Steel, of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, says a sense of a distinct Canadian identity had been growing in the early 20th century, particularly in the wake of the two great wars.

Along with simplifying legislation that was at that time in bits and pieces in a variety of places, the new act would clarify citizenship. Steel quotes Paul Martin Sr.’s vision at the time; “to provide an underlying community of status for all of our people in this country that will help to bind them together as Canadians.”

Prior to 1947, all Canadians, were considered British subjects. While Mackenzie King’s act may have been just ceremonial, as all people born in Canada then, were automatically citizens, the conditions to become a citizen were established and viewed as a privilege.

A person had to be 21 years of age, a resident for five years and intending to live their life in Canada, with a comfort in either the English or French language. They also had to be familiar with the rights and responsibilities of a Canadian, and be of good character.

In 1977, another Liberal government revised several of these requirements, beginning with the establishment of citizenship as a right, not a privilege.

To exercise this right, one had to be 18 years of age, living in Canada for three years, and the former distinctions between British subjects and people coming from other places in the world, were abolished. Restrictions on dual citizenship were also lifted.

In 2014, the Conservative government passed a new citizenship act in what they saw as an effort to strengthen the process.

Another year was added to the residency requirement and there was increased investigation into the validity of these statements to sort out cases of fraud.

The language requirements were increased to provide demonstrations of proficiency for all applicants up to the age of 64. Both the guide and the citizenship test were revised to be more demanding with the result that more people failed.

Several of the revisions left many Canadians uncomfortable and some of the changes became major issues in the 2015 federal election campaign.

The increased conditions for revocation of citizenship, including anyone convicted of a crime of terrorism, as well as the conflict over women veiled or covered at citizenship ceremonies, became flash points of divisiveness.

The so-called immigrant votes that the Conservatives had wooed away from the Liberals were no longer guaranteed.

Following their victory, the current Liberal government, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the son of the Prime Minister who oversaw the 1977 revision and made “multiculturalism’ official policy, has revised the act again. Some of the Conservative changes have been repealed and the bill is now making its way through the Senate.

The residency requirement is back to three years, the language requirements have been loosened and only applicable to those up to the age of 54, to accommodate grandparents and the elderly joining family already here. And anyone convicted of terrorism will serve their time in Canada.

Citizenship is back in the headlines again with the Conservative leadership race beginning to heat up. Today Lisa Raitt, a strong contender, challenged two of her rivals, Kellie Leitch and as yet undeclared candidate, businessman Kevin O’Leary.

Raitt blasted them for their bluster accusing them of following in Donald Trump’s footsteps. Leitch has been vocal about screening new immigrants for “anti-Canadian values”. She is also one of the former MP’s who announced a tip-line for Canadians to report their neighbours, suspected of “barbaric practices”. It was one of the lowest points in the 2015 campaign, and partly responsible for the Conservative government’s resounding defeat.

Leitch has not garnered much media attention in her leadership bid so far, so it may be surprising to some Canadians that her views are gaining support. Her campaign is now the best-financed. But Lisa Raitt claims a victory by either Leitch or O’Leary, will put the Conservatives in opposition at best, for a generation to come.

The leadership decision will be made on May 27th. In the meantime, all of the new citizens will be observing the discourse.

More than a million and half people have become Canadian citizens over these 70 years. For those who live here content with Permanent Resident status, perhaps the time to take a second look has arrived; one of the paramount rights citizenship confers, is the right to vote.

As 2017 gets underway, more Citizenship ceremonies are being planned. Canada was one of the pioneers in creating a ceremony. And they have moved beyond the governmental locations out into the community. From high schools to football fields, these rights of passage can take place wherever Canadians would like to host them.

Heather Steel, whose position at the ICC connects her with many of these ceremonies, says witnessing them is one of the best parts of her job.

Source: rcinet.ca

Antiguan and Barbudan diplomat Casroy James is being called on to voluntarily step down after he admitted to receiving monies purported to be bribery payments, but which he said were legitimate fees for consultancy work.

Former National Security Minister of St Kitts & Nevis Dwyer Astaphan said that James, Antigua & Barbuda’s Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) should at least demit office until the matter of the alleged bribery is resolved.

“At the least he should stand down until this matter clears ways if indeed it ever does. The government should invite him to stand down quietly and discreetly and if he doesn’t then stand him down. Show the world that we do things right around here,” Astaphan declared.

“If an individual has to go down because of wrong doing or an allegation of wrong doing or even if he or she is innocent of wrongdoing but the perception could linger…then the government has always to act in the public interest.”

Attorney at law Anthony Astaphan also gave OBSERVER media his view on what James’ next move should be. He said, “In his own personal interest and in the interest of the country…he should consider options available to him and make a decision that he thinks is in the best interest of himself, the government and the country.”

While he maintained that he did not intend to impugn James’ character the former minister said, “It is important to ask this. If the money received from the bank was properly received by him then why return it?”

With regard to James’ assertion that he received the money as Citizenship by investment Programme (CIP) agent, Dwyer Astaphan declared, “If he is an ambassador how can he still be a service provider for Antigua & Barbuda’s Citizenship by Investment? Might there be a conflict of interest?”

Anthony Astaphan said that “there should be some regulation” to prevent any conflicts of interest for ambassadors occurring “so that when people take up the position they would be in absolutely no doubt as to how far they can go and how far they can carry those private interests”.

Dwyer Astaphan added, “I can’t help but wonder how thorough his due diligence was in checking out his potential client. You have to know your customer.”

Source: antiguaobserver.com

On December 22nd, 2016, the minister to whom citizenship-by- investment is assigned signed a statutory instrument making amendments to the Citizenship-by-Investment Regulations No. 89 of 2015.

At this time, these are the only changes that have been made to the Citizenship-by-Investment legislation.

Please see below the full text of the changes made.   

In exercise of the power conferred under section 40 of the Citizenship-by-lnvestment Act, No. 14 of 2015, the Minister responsible for the Citizenship-by-Investment Programme is assigned makes these Regulations:

Citation and commencement

1. (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Citizenship-by-lnvestment (Amendment) Regulations, 2016.

(2) These Regulations shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 2017.

Interpretation

1. In these Regulations, “principal Regulations” means the   Citizenship-by-Investment Regulations, No. 89 of 2015.

Amendment of regulation 7

1. Regulation 7 of the principal Regulations is  amended by  revoking sub-regulations (3) and (7).

Amendment of regulation 9

1. Regulation 9 of the principal Regulations is amended by:

1. inserting the designation (1) immediately before the word “Where”;

1. inserting immediately after the new sub-regulation (1) the following –

“(2) The Board shall retain twenty per cent of each monetary contribution to the Saint Lucia National Economic fund for the  marketing and promotion of the Citizenship-by-Investment  Programme.”.

Insertion of new regulation 15

1. The principal Regulations are amended by inserting immediately after regulation l4, the following –

“Oath of allegiance

15. A successful applicant shall sign the oath of allegiance before an attorney-at-law, Consular Officer of Saint Lucia, Honorary Consul of Saint Lucia, Notary Royal or Notary Public.”.

Amendment of Schedule 1

1. Schedule l of the principal Regulations is amended, in paragraph 1, by inserting in its proper sequence the following –

” Non-refundable administration fee –  Purchase of non-interest bearing Government Bonds US$ 50,0 00 “.

Amendment of Schedule 2

1. Schedule 2 of the principal Regulations is a mended by deleting paragraph 1 and replacing the following –

The Citizenship-by-Investment Unit remains available to provide any additional information required.  

Please visit www.cipsaintlucia.com or email info@cipsaintlucia.com

Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr. the Honourable Timothy Harris, updated the general public on the status of the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF) during the Sitting of Parliament on Tuesday, December 13.

Dr. Harris noted that there have been a number of issues with the SIDF leading up to the 2015 elections to which Team Unity spoke to with respect to the establishment and operations of the organization. He noted that concerns were based on the view “that (I) a body set up to receive funds derived from the Citizenship by Investment Programme must be accountable to the people of this country through its Parliament, and must not just be deposited into a private foundation and out of sight with no direct accountability to the Government and by extension the people of St. Kitts and Nevis, and (II) the very significant amount of funds deposited into the SIDF were being used to further projects, the viability of which has not been demonstrated, nor was the ability of those projects to diversity or grow the national economy clearly ascertainable”.

Prime Minister Harris said that upon taking office in February 2015, plans were put in place to address the concerns.

“Priority was given to understanding the workings of this private foundation which was being put in receipt of quite significant sums of money from the Citizenship by Investment Programme,” said Dr. Harris, while adding that a Board of Councillors was appointed with Dr. Robertine Chaderton as Chairperson. “The Board also comprises Mr. McClure Taylor, an attorney at law; Mr. Leon Lescott, who has vast experience in the hospitality industry; and Mrs. Marguerite Foreman, also an attorney at law, appointed as Secretary.”

Prime Minister Harris spoke to the auditing firm Ernst & Young (EY) that was retained to conduct a review from 2010 to 2015. He noted that reports revealed that understanding the workings of the SIDF was not an easy task.

“The Board was also informed that the SIDF has made decisions and spent vast amounts of funds without keeping proper records, such as board meeting notes, reports, opinions, or minutes of meetings – any of which would reveal on what basis certain decisions were taken with respect to these vast levels of expenditure,” said Dr. Harris. “A relevant minute with respect to a decision to spend millions of dollars, if it existed at all, would take up only a few lines, and there would be no detailed reason given as to why the particular decision was made.

“The Ernst & Young report has shown that since its inception, to the year 2014, the SIDF has been the beneficiary of just about EC$1.5 billion dollars,” he said. “However, over the same period the SIDF has spent approximately 1 billion dollars with approximately EC$500 million spent in the two years prior to the 2015 General Election, almost double the normal annual expenditure of the SIDF since its inception. Among those rather startling levels of expenditure, was the discovery that about $150 Million dollars was spent on miscellaneous grants and donations in the two years leading up to the 2015 General Election. Most unfortunately but not unexpectedly, the SIDF operations were just another example of the gross profligacy for which the last administration had achieved most notoriety.”

Dr. Harris noted that the Board was also informed that the SIDF operated for well over eight years “without by-laws and also without any formal internal process for feasibility assessments, return on investment analyses, and risk assessments, despite distributing vast sums of money which belonged to the people of St. Kitts and Nevis”.

Source: zizonline.com

Most countries in the world offer a deal offering fast-tracked residency permits and, ultimately, citizenship in return for investments in local businesses and property.

With the UK voting to leave the European Union, it is becoming more attractive for wealthy Brits to look elsewhere for access to the European single market and the freedom of movement to travel and work across the 28-nation trading bloc.

A study by citizenship consultancy firm Henley and Partners analysed the programmes offered by different governments across the world, ranking them by value, quality and reputation among other metrics.

Here are the EU countries that performed the best for cheap and easy access to residency.

12. Bulgaria — A deposit of around €500,000 in a Bulgarian government bond portfolio for five years is enough to qualify for Bulgaria’s residency programme.

11. Greece — After being granted a so-called “D” visa, investors can apply for Greek residency after purchasing properties with a total value of €250,000.

10. Cyprus — The Mediterranean island offers a low corporation tax of 12.5% for residents’ businesses but to apply you need to buy a property worth more than €300,000.

9. Monaco — Residents of Monaco are not subject to income tax, capital gains tax or wealth tax and are able to travel visa-free to all Schengen area countries.

8. Jersey — The island of Jersey is attractive for its low tax regime and mild climate. The minimum investment for residency costs £125,000 a year and is only open to those earning more than £625,000.

7. United Kingdom — The UK might not be cheap but it is an attractive destination for rich families looking for good private schooling. The residency programme is tiered, asking for £2 million, £5 million and £10 million from investors.

6. Latvia — To obtain a Latvian temporary residence permit, one has to buy real estate worth €250,000 and pay a 5% government fee.

5. Spain — The country has a similar programme to Portugal, and a resident permit can be obtained by buying a €500,000 house or investing €2 million in Spanish government debt.

4. Malta — Malta applies a low 15% tax rate for permanent residents, and the programme can be accessed for relatively little money — the purchase of a €275,000 property should do it.

3. Portugal — To obtain Portuguese residency one can create 10 jobs with a business, transfer €1 million into a Portuguese bank or buy a house for €500,000.

2. Belgium — A Belgian residency application takes as little as two months to process and employment in the country may be a qualifier on its own, negating the need for investment.

1. Austria — Austria offers 10 different types of residency permit that do not require an investment and which can be used for visa-free travel across the Schengen area.

Source: independent.co.uk