Montenegro unveiled a detailed roster of more than a thousand individuals granted what authorities describe as honorific or economic citizenship between 2008 and 2022. The list, broadcast on national television, includes recipients from a broad set of nations such as Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine, among others. Notably, people from Russia represented a sizable portion of entries, particularly in 2021 and 2022, when their numbers neared half of the total count.
The release noted that most holders of this status obtained a “golden passport” through requests tied to senior government officials. The program behind these acquisitions, commonly labeled as economic citizenship, began in Montenegro in 2019. The government aimed to attract thousands of new residents and generate substantial revenue, with ambitions of issuing up to two thousand passports and securing billions of euros. Yet the initiative did not meet those ambitious targets, and European Union authorities repeatedly urged reform or termination.
Separately, in another major policy update, reports indicated that Russia had finalized requirements for foreigners seeking residence permits through investment. The new framework outlines two viable paths: investing at least 15 million rubles in socially significant regional projects, or 30 million rubles in a Russian legal entity registered in the capital. These rules are meant to streamline long-term residency for investors while balancing national immigration controls with economic development goals. Observers note that such programs attract interest from diverse markets, but outcomes vary widely by sector, region, and the political climate.
For readers weighing citizenship and residency options, several common questions often arise: What are the real benefits of citizenship-by-investment programs? Which countries offer the most open paths for residency or citizenship through investment, and what protections exist for applicants? How do international sanctions, regulatory changes, and EU expectations shape the viability of these programs over time? How important are governance safeguards, transparency, and due diligence in ensuring that programs serve legitimate economic purposes rather than merely offering prestige or an escape from tax or regulatory regimes?
Against this backdrop, the Montenegro case stands as a useful study in the tension between policy ambitions and practical results. The country’s early hopes for a dramatic influx of capital clashed with concerns from international partners and the broader European market about governance, security, and long-term benefits. Analysts emphasize that transparency, consistent standards, and clear economic rationales are essential if similar schemes are to endure. The Russian investment residence framework likewise reflects a balancing act between attracting capital and maintaining regulatory integrity, with the actual impact hinging on the strength of oversight, the ease of implementation, and the overall business environment in the years ahead. In examining these developments, readers in Canada and the United States can better understand how investment-linked residency and citizenship programs may influence foreign investment, governance, and market dynamics.