Latvia Rewrites Its Investor Residence Rules
Latvia may close its established residence-by-investment routes based on property purchases and subordinated bank capital, replacing them with a state-managed investment fund requiring at least €150,000. Parliament adopted a new Immigration Law on June 11, 2026, but President Edgars Rinkēvičs declined to promulgate it and returned the legislation for reconsideration. The reform is not yet in force, leaving the programme’s final structure unresolved.
The president halted the reform after its final vote
The Saeima adopted the new Immigration Law by 65 votes to 17. It is intended to replace legislation dating from 2002 and restructure the rules governing the entry, residence, employment, integration and return of non-European Union nationals. Parliament presented the reform as a measure to strengthen migration control, reduce fraudulent residence grounds and comply with EU requirements.
Rinkēvičs returned the law on June 19, eight days after its adoption. His objections focused primarily on residence permits connected to investment. Lawmakers had received 158 proposals before the third reading, including substantive additions that had not appeared in the original bill.
Returning the law does not permanently block it. Parliament may amend the disputed sections or adopt the legislation again without changes. A second unchanged vote would require the president to promulgate it.
IMI Daily expects reconsideration after the parliamentary recess unless lawmakers hold an earlier extraordinary sitting. The publication also notes that the state investment vehicle envisaged by the law has not yet been created and cannot currently accept applicants’ capital.
The adopted law removes the property route
The current framework permits a temporary residence permit lasting up to five years when an applicant purchases Latvian property worth at least €250,000. One functionally connected property may qualify in Riga, Jūrmala and specified surrounding municipalities. Outside those areas, an investor may acquire no more than two properties with a combined value of at least €250,000.
The transaction must be cashless, and agricultural or forest land cannot form part of the qualifying property. The law also applies cadastral-value requirements and may require a certified valuation when those thresholds are not met.
A first-time applicant must contribute 5% of the property value to the state budget. A €250,000 purchase therefore results in a non-refundable €12,500 payment in addition to the acquisition price, taxes, registration costs and professional fees.
The version adopted by parliament no longer contains this route. Economics Minister Viktors Valainis proposed retaining the €250,000 threshold and the existing conditions covering location, valuation and cashless payment, but the responsible committee rejected his amendment.
The president has suggested a narrower alternative. Property-based residence could remain available to citizens of NATO, European Economic Area and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states, together with other countries placed on a government-approved list of partners considered friendly to Latvia.
Parliament or the Cabinet would still need to determine the permitted locations, minimum property values and valuation requirements. Property may therefore return to the final law, although access would probably be more restricted by nationality and geography.
The €280,000 bank option would also end
Current rules allow an applicant to qualify through at least €280,000 in subordinated liabilities with a Latvian credit institution. The agreement must remain in place for a minimum of five years.
Subordinated capital is not equivalent to an ordinary deposit. If the bank encounters financial distress, the investor’s claim ranks behind those of most standard creditors, increasing the risk of capital loss.
The applicant must also make a non-refundable €25,000 state contribution when receiving the first permit. Latvia’s Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs continues to list this as an active residence ground while the existing law remains in force.
The adopted reform does not preserve the banking route. Unlike property, it was not singled out by the president as a possible option for selected nationalities, making its restoration appear less likely.
The government-bond option is also in doubt
The current programme formally includes the acquisition of €250,000 in special-purpose interest-free government securities. After a positive residence decision, the applicant purchases the bonds and contributes a further €38,000 to the state. The permit may be granted for up to five years.
IMI Daily’s headline focuses on the two best-known routes being removed: property and subordinated bank capital. A separate assessment of the adopted legislation states that the special government-securities option would also disappear from the redesigned programme.
Its practical importance depends on the number of investors using it, but the legal change remains significant. The new structure would no longer offer a passive residence route based on a predetermined sovereign asset.
The new fund would require at least €150,000
The principal addition is a route involving an alternative investment fund manager established by the state. An applicant would sign an agreement, invest at least €150,000 for no less than five years and contribute another €10,000 to the state budget.
The investment could support a temporary residence permit lasting up to five years. The permit would remain valid only while the manager confirms that the agreement has not been terminated and the investment balance remains at or above €150,000.
An alternative investment fund pools investors’ capital and allocates it under a defined strategy. Such vehicles may hold private-company equity, venture investments, infrastructure, property and other assets outside conventional retail funds.
The original proposal contemplated private managers investing at least half of their assets in Latvian companies. Parliamentary revisions replaced that model with one state-created manager, removed the compulsory 50% domestic allocation and added the €10,000 state payment.
The route currently exists only as a legislative proposal. The manager, investment strategy, eligible assets, fees, valuation rules, redemption process and responsibility for losses have not been fully established.
The €150,000 threshold therefore cannot yet be treated as an operational programme price. Investors do not know the expected returns, the level of management charges or the conditions under which capital would be returned after five years.
The president wants stronger source-of-funds controls
Rinkēvičs questioned whether the fund provision was sufficiently complete. Parliament must decide whether the statute itself can govern the route or whether the Cabinet needs delegated authority to set rules for verifying the origin of investment capital and determining how the money may be used.
A credible review would have to examine both the applicant’s source of wealth and the origin of the particular funds transferred. Authorities would also need to assess sanctions exposure, politically exposed person status, beneficial ownership and possible links to criminal activity.
Ordinary bank compliance checks would not replace the state’s immigration and national-security review.
The president also highlighted a drafting gap involving Russian and Belarusian nationals. The initially adopted wording did not consistently extend existing nationality restrictions to the new fund option.
Parliament passed a separate amendment on June 18 to prevent Russian and Belarusian citizens from using the alternative-fund route.
Company investment remains but permits become shorter
Investment in the share capital of Latvian companies survives the reform. The minimum remains €50,000 for a business employing no more than 50 people and recording annual turnover or balance-sheet assets of no more than €10 million.
The larger-company threshold is €100,000. The same amount may apply to a Latvian company group exceeding the employment and financial limits.
Each applicant must contribute another €10,000 to the state, and no more than ten foreign investors may qualify through a single company.
Qualifying businesses must demonstrate genuine activity through tax payments. The annual minimum is €40,000 for the smaller-company tier and €100,000 for the larger-company or group structure.
The central change is permit duration. The current programme allows company investors to receive residence for up to five years. The adopted law reduces that period to two years, and proposals to retain the longer term were rejected.
More frequent renewal gives the state additional opportunities to verify compliance. It also increases administrative burden and reduces predictability for investors whose business plans extend beyond two years.
The reform changes the programme’s economic logic
Property investment creates direct demand for housing but does not guarantee new companies or jobs. The banking route adds capital to financial institutions, although its economic impact depends on how the bank deploys the money.
A state fund could direct capital toward selected industries, growing companies or infrastructure. In principle, this gives policymakers greater influence over the use of investors’ money than separate apartment purchases.
That benefit is not automatic. The adopted wording no longer requires at least half the fund’s assets to be invested in Latvian companies. Capital could therefore flow into government securities, bank instruments or other assets with a limited direct effect on productivity and employment.
The fund also transfers control from the applicant to a professional manager. A property investor chooses and controls a specific asset, while a fund participant depends on portfolio decisions, valuation policies, fees and withdrawal rules.
Property developers face a period of uncertainty
Ending the property route would reduce demand from buyers who treated Latvian residence as part of the value of a €250,000 acquisition. Riga, Jūrmala and projects historically marketed internationally may be the most exposed.
Global Citizen Solutions estimates that property accounted for almost half of programme approvals in 2025 and early 2026. It reported 206 investment-permit approvals in 2025, 35% more than in the previous year. The figures are a private-sector assessment rather than official programme statistics, but they indicate renewed demand before the reform.
The removal of one immigration incentive is unlikely by itself to cause a nationwide property-price correction. A more concentrated effect is possible in the segment above €250,000 and in developments marketed specifically to non-resident investors.
The president’s proposed restricted property route could preserve part of that demand. Eligibility would nevertheless depend on nationality, location and rules that have not yet been written.
Transitional provisions protect existing applicants
The adopted text protects permits already issued until the end of their registration or validity period. Applications formally accepted before the new law takes effect are expected to continue under the current framework.
The relevant legal event is likely to be the formal acceptance of an application. Signing a purchase agreement, transferring a deposit or investing in a company may not be sufficient if the migration authority has not yet registered the case.
The existing routes remain legally available until the new legislation is adopted, promulgated and brought into force, subject to nationality restrictions already in place.
The final rules may still differ substantially from those passed on June 11. Parliament can restore a limited property option, revise the fund’s governance and clarify the transition period.
As International Investment experts report, Latvia is attempting to replace transparent but largely passive investment grounds with a more controllable structure. A state fund does not automatically create productive domestic investment. Without a mandatory allocation to Latvian enterprises, independent oversight, transparent charges and clear redemption terms, the new route may become an expensive residence mechanism with limited economic spillovers. The immediate investor risk is not simply a higher financial threshold but legal uncertainty: the fund does not yet exist, property may return in a restricted form, and the final conditions depend on the Saeima’s second vote.
FAQ on Latvia’s Investor Residence Reform
Has the new Immigration Law entered into force?
No. The president returned it to parliament on June 19, 2026. Existing rules remain in effect until the Saeima adopts the law again and it is officially promulgated.
Has Latvia abolished residence through property investment?
Not yet. The adopted law removes the route, but the legislation is not in force. The president has proposed retaining property residence for citizens of NATO, EEA and OECD countries and other approved partner states.
How much would the new state-fund route require?
The applicant would invest at least €150,000 for five years and contribute a further €10,000 to the state budget. The route could provide residence for up to five years.
Can investors apply through the fund now?
No. The state-created manager and its operating framework have not yet been established.
Will company investment remain available?
Yes. The thresholds remain €50,000 for smaller qualifying businesses and €100,000 for larger companies, plus a €10,000 state contribution. The new law would reduce the permit term from five years to two.
What happens to permits already issued?
They are not automatically cancelled. Existing permits remain valid for their registration or validity period, while applications accepted before the new law takes effect receive transitional protection.
Does Latvia’s investor permit grant citizenship?
No. It provides temporary residence. Permanent residence and citizenship require separate conditions, including qualifying residence and Latvian-language requirements.
Can Russian and Belarusian nationals use the new fund option?
Parliament has adopted a separate amendment extending restrictions to the fund route. The president has asked lawmakers to ensure that the limitation is consistently reflected throughout the legislation.