Latvia’s parliament scraps two “golden visa” options and adds a fund-based route; President Rinkēvičs sends the law back for review

The Saeima of Latvia on June 11 passed a new Immigration Law (Imigrācijas likums) by 65 votes to 17, replacing the rules in force since 2002 for granting residence permits to foreign nationals through investment. However, President Edgars Rinkēvičs did not sign the document: the head of state returned the bill to second reading, citing provisions that determine who may acquire the right to live in Latvia through investments and under what conditions.

At present, the law has not entered into force. Publication has been paused because the parliament must revisit the text. Since the spring session ended on June 18, the renewed vote is likely to take place only in autumn.

The changes are built around adjustments to the investment requirements: the law closes two existing routes, keeps one, and introduces a new option.

Two “golden visa” routes Latvia is closing

Under the current version, a foreign national could obtain a residence permit if they met one of the following conditions:

• Buying real estate worth at least €250,000 (about $285,000);
• Making an investment of €280,000 (about $319,000) as subordinated capital into a Latvian credit institution.

In the new version, these grounds are removed. In other words, both the long-standing “classic” pathway through real estate that supported Latvia’s investment programme and the banking option alongside it are discontinued.

At the same time, existing status holders do not automatically lose rights already granted. Applications submitted and accepted before the new law enters into force will be assessed under the previous rules. Permits issued earlier remain valid until the date they are registered; after that, the applicant will have to reapply under the transitional rules.

Real estate, however, was discussed again. Economy Minister Viktors Valainis proposed bringing the pathway back by setting a five-year requirement for an asset worth “no less than €250,000” in Riga, Jūrmala, and in a list of specific municipalities. An alternative would be two purchases in other regions with a combined value at a comparable level. But the committee rejected the proposal, also refusing additional requirements related to cadastral value, payment without cash, and verified appraisals.

A new route via an investment fund from €150,000

The key innovation is Article 27(1)(36). This pathway did not exist in the bill at the time of the final reading, but after revisions it was included in the adopted version.

Under the new scheme, a permit is granted for up to five years if a contract is signed and funds of at least €150,000 (about $171,000) are transferred for an investment term of no less than five years through a state-established alternative investment fund manager. In addition, applicants must pay €10,000 to the state budget.

In practice, however, this route cannot yet be implemented: the state fund that would receive the €150,000 has not been created. Separate regulation will be needed to launch the instrument.

The idea was discussed by Andris Kulbergs, who first proposed it as a Saeima member and later led the government at the end of May. The proposal made it into the final text after the relevant committee rewrote its version.

Initially, Kulbergs linked the investment to private structures where at least half of the assets would be placed in Latvian companies. The committee replaced this with a single state manager, removed the requirement for local investments, and added the €10,000 budget payment.

Under the current wording, the validity of the permit depends on confirmation: the state alternative fund manager must certify that the agreement has not been terminated and that the remaining investment is not below €150,000.

Which route remains in place

One investment pathway is retained, though shorter in duration. This is Article 27(1)(10): a permit is granted for up to two years if the applicant invests in the share capital of a company, provided that €10,000 is paid to the state budget and at least €50,000 (about $57,000) is invested in a company employing up to 50 people and with annual revenue or balance sheet indicators of up to €10 million.

For the larger segment, the required investment is €100,000 (about $114,000) in a company which, together with its subsidiaries, employs more than 50 people and has turnover or a balance sheet exceeding €10 million. An additional limitation was introduced: no more than 10 foreign nationals can claim permits through a single company.

The main change is the duration. Previously, this route provided five years with annual extensions via residence documents. Now the term is reduced to two years. Tax-related conditions remain: at least €40,000 per year for the smaller level and €100,000 per year for the larger one.

Which proposals failed

Several other investment ideas reached the third reading but were rejected.

In particular, Kulbergs proposed a €150,000 option involving companies established by structures linked to the special economic zone and the free port, as well as reviving a scheme with state bonds at a zero interest rate. Both directions were not supported.

Two attempts to extend the “company” route from two years to five also failed—first from Kulbergs and then from the economy minister.

The “tax relief” idea also did not pass: Kulbergs wanted investors to become Latvian tax residents by making a fixed annual payment of €60,000 (about $68,000), but the committee rejected that mechanism.

Why the president sent the law back

Rinkēvičs based his objections on the same investment provisions. He said that during the third reading there were 158 proposals, some of a technical nature and others effectively creating a fundamentally new legal framework for obtaining residence through investment. As a result, he asked the Saeima to reconsider “several aspects” again.

First on the list is the real estate question. The president proposed assessing whether citizens of NATO countries, OECD countries, and EEA states (and possibly other friendly countries listed by the Cabinet of Ministers) should be allowed to request residence based on purchasing real estate. He also noted that a similar request had been submitted by “the largest representatives of the real estate transaction sector.”

On the fund-based route, the president raised a narrower but fundamental issue: the rule in point 36 must be complete and sufficient and should not require “delegating” the matter to the Cabinet of Ministers. In particular, this concerns checks on the sources of funds and defining what the investor may actually allocate the money to.

The sharpest point concerns a “loophole” already identified in the law. As originally adopted, the fund route did not exclude citizens of Russia and Belarus. Only on June 18 did the parliament quickly pass a separate amendment to close the gap. Committee chair Raimonds Bergmanis acknowledged that the omission slipped through the discussion stage. In effect, the fix arrived just days before the president signed the bill, looking like a package assembled in haste.

At the same time, limits remain in the new version. A separate provision states that discretionary permits for citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus are considered through the Minister of the Interior and are available only where issuing them complies with international legal standards or is tied to humanitarian grounds. Additional restrictions may be added later via a separate Cabinet amendment.

The tightening story: from “golden visa” to risk control

Latvia’s “golden visa” programme was launched in 2010 (Ainars Šlesers). At the time, Latvia was almost the only country in Europe offering such terms. In the first years, a large share of applications came from Russia until 2022, when the ban was introduced. Demand also dropped noticeably after 2016.

In 2018, a critical Moneyval report pushed Latvia toward further tightening and strengthening the role of financial intelligence in screening investors. The current version effectively completes the shift away from “real estate” and “bank capital”—the very elements that defined the programme’s early stage.

The timing of the changes is also not coincidental: in the weeks leading up to the vote, investigators reviewed more than 20 companies over suspicions of abuse under the share capital scheme. The Progressive Party, which initiated the request to the president to reinstate the law, points to the same backdrop of money-laundering risk concerns.

What happens next will be decided by the Saeima. The parliament may:

• pass the law again without changes (after which the president will be required to publish it);
• introduce amendments addressing the president’s objections;
• leave the issue unresolved until the autumn session.

Until the Saeima reaches a decision, the existing investment route remains the company-based scheme, while the fund-based route—intended to become the foundation of the future model—has not yet been launched, as the state instrument still needs to be created.

If you’re considering Latvia for an investment-based residence permit, it’s crucial to monitor how the “golden visa” routes are changing: the parliament is closing certain investment options and introducing a new fund-based mechanism. To avoid missing the updated criteria and to plan your application correctly, the Digital Nomad team will help you navigate the current law wording, the timeline for re-evaluation, and the most suitable scenarios.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr