applications, submissions, filings, notifications under the regulations. In Hungary, the
Hungarian Parliament’s Economy Committee authorised a number of businesses whose role
was to issue the residency bonds to be purchased by the applicants. Only one company could
receive the authorisation to issue bonds in a given third country114.
4.2.3. Measures to improve transparency, governance and security
The study shows that annual reporting exercises are still very limited. As regards investor
citizenship schemes, there is in general a lack of transparency as regards the applications and
the persons who obtain citizenship. In the case of investor residence schemes, the absence of
desegregation of statistics, does not allow for the specific ground for residence or the
investment option that was chosen to be identified. Data on the numbers of received
applications, country of origin and on the number of citizenships and residence permits
granted could be usefully published, for example in the form of annual reports. Member
States could also clarify and publicise criteria for assessing applications, security checks
performed in the framework of the scheme and ensure ex-post monitoring of compliance with
these criteria (in particular of the investment) on a regular basis.
In addition, a characteristic of these schemes is the use of businesses which advise the
governments on operating the scheme or carry out proactive tasks involving the exercise of
the powers of a public authority in managing such schemes, yet at the same time also advise
individuals on their applications to the scheme. In none of the Member States studied,
whether for citizenship schemes or for residence schemes, is there a mechanism to deal with
the risk of conflict of interest that could arise from this situation. The oversight of all other
intermediaries is also important. Given the significance of citizenship and residence rights, it
might be expected that the examination of applications, interviews and any other decisionmaking or screening activities would always be done by government authorities, as part of the
general need for an effective and independent oversight of the schemes and all actors
involved.
Clarity in procedures and in responsibilities, coupled with transparency through regular
monitoring and reporting, is the best way to guard against the concerns that investor
citizenship and residence schemes raise.
As regards the investor citizenship schemes, to ensure coherence in the practices of Member
States and an efficient exchange of information, including as regards prior consultation on
security grounds, a system of exchange of information and statistics on the number of
applications received, accepted and rejected, as well as consultation on rejected applications
for reasons of security should be established. For this reason, the Commission intends to set
up a group of experts from Member States to look into the specific risks that arise from
investor citizenship schemes and to address the aspects of transparency and good governance
with regard to the implementation of both investor citizenship and residence schemes. More
specifically, the group of experts should develop of a common set of security checks for
investor citizenship schemes, including specific risk management processes that take into
account security, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption risks by the end of 2019.
114
The companies that received authorisation were located in the following countries: Grand Cayman
(Hungary State Special Debt Fund), Malta (Discus Holdings Ltd.), Cyprus (Migrat Immigration Asia Ltd.,
Innozone Holdings Limited), Hungary (Arton Capital Hungary), Russia (VolDan Investments Limited),
Liechtenstein (S & Z Program Limited), and Singapore (Euro-Asia Investment Management Pte Ltd.).
21