Latvian MPs move to delete the €150,000 fund residence route

Five members of Latvia’s Saeima have filed a bill that would strike the €150,000 investment-fund residence ground out of the Immigration Law. Bill 1521/Lp14, lodged on 3 September 2026 and referred to committee on 10 September, targets Article 27(1)(36) — the provision that makes a €150,000 placement with a state-established alternative investment fund manager a ground for temporary residence of up to five years. That provision took effect on 15 September, twelve days after the bill to remove it was filed; the Immigration Law that carries it replaced the statute of 2002 on the same day.

What the bill does

The bill runs to a single page and three operative points. The first deletes Article 27(1)(36) outright. The second strikes the words and figure “and point 36” from the seventh and eighth parts of Article 27. The third removes the words “or 36” from four further places — Articles 28 and 30, Article 34(4) and Article 44(23). It is an excision rather than a narrowing: no reduced threshold, no saving clause, and no transitional or commencement provision of any kind.

It was submitted under Rule 79(1)(4) of the Saeima Rules of Procedure, which allows any five deputies to introduce legislation. The five are Andris Šuvajevs, Andris Sprūds, Liene Gātere, Kaspars Briškens and Jana Simanovska. The Presidium, in an opinion of 7 September signed by Speaker Daiga Mieriņa, proposed that the bill go to the Defence, Internal Affairs and Corruption Prevention Committee as the responsible committee. The plenary referred it there on 10 September.

What the provision says

Article 27(1)(36) of the Immigration Law provides a ground for a temporary residence permit of up to five years where a contract has been concluded and a transfer made of at least €150,000, for a term of not less than five years, to a state-established alternative investment fund manager, and where the applicant has paid a further €10,000 into the state budget. It is a ground on which a permit may be sought, not an assurance that one will be issued.

Nor does a permit granted on it run unconditionally. The point’s second sentence makes continuing validity depend on the fund manager certifying, while the permit is current, that the investment contract has not been terminated and that the balance has not fallen below €150,000. The obligation therefore runs for the life of the permit.

One feature of that manager is worth stating precisely, because it is a claim about the statute rather than about the world. Across the whole consolidated text in force, the Latvian string fond occurs exactly twice and pārvaldniek exactly twice, and all four occurrences sit inside Article 27(1)(36). Nowhere else does the Immigration Law establish such a manager, name one, or oblige any body to create one. Whether one exists outside the statute is a question this article does not answer.

What the four cross-references carry

The four cross-references concern suspension, refusal, the destination of the payment and the right to work. Three of them say something a reader holding a file would want to know.

Article 28 is a suspension power. Issuance under Article 27(1)(10) or (36) may be suspended for up to five years: having assessed the effect on national security or on economic development in connection with the number of foreigners in the country and their concentration in a given territory, the Cabinet determines for which third-country nationals, and for how long, issuance stops. Under Article 29(1) a suspension also bars a repeat permit, so it reaches renewals and not only first grants. Article 34(4) supplies the consequence: an applicant caught by restrictions made under Article 28 is not issued a permit.

Article 30 directs the money, crediting the payment to the Treasury account for the state basic budget programme “Economic Development Programme”. Article 44 lists who holds the right to employment without restrictions, and its point 23 is a permit under Article 27(1)(10) or (36).

What the bill leaves standing

The bill removes one investment ground, not investment-linked residence in Latvia. Article 27(1)(10), untouched, provides a ground for residence of up to two years for an investment in a company’s share capital plus €10,000 into the state budget, the investment starting at €50,000 where the company employs no more than fifty people and its turnover or balance sheet does not exceed €10 million. It caps permits at ten foreigners per company and keeps each one valid only while the company meets an annual tax-payment floor.

The distinction is visible in the drafting. All four cross-references read “point 10 or 36”; the bill deletes only “or 36”, leaving point 10 in place everywhere.

The case the sponsors make

The explanatory note argues that granting residence in exchange for a financial contribution — one it calls “very minimal” — carries disproportionate and elevated risks to national security and to the state’s reputation, alongside risks of money laundering and of sanctions being circumvented; and that such a ground does not match the Immigration Law’s purpose, resting as it does on an applicant’s financial means rather than on labour-market need, security, other objective public interests or integration policy. It invokes the common European Union approach to residence-for-investment risk and cites MONEYVAL evaluations. It records that it drew on risk assessments given by competent institutions while the provision was being adopted, and on the conclusions of the Saeima’s parliamentary inquiry committee into residence permits issued on the basis of investment, and that no separate consultations were held.

On the budget the note says the bill will have no negative effect, “because to date no payments of this kind have been made into the state budget”. That sentence carries a date. It was written on 3 September, twelve days before the provision took effect, and it is evidence of nothing about take-up after 15 September.

The clock

Latvia votes for the 15th Saeima on 3 October 2026, a date published by the Central Election Commission, and a deputy’s mandate ends when the newly elected parliament convenes.

Rule 39 sets out what crosses that boundary, and its conditions are cumulative. Where examination of a bill has not been completed within one Saeima’s term and the bill has been examined in one or two readings, the next Saeima may decide that examination continues — but only on a proposal from the President, the Cabinet, a committee or five deputies, and only in its first session. A bill referred onward that way is then deemed adopted at first reading. The sitting Saeima may decide only on continuing a bill submitted to the previous one.

As at 19 September the register records no reading for bill 1521/Lp14. Its last recorded step is the referral of 10 September, and the deadline field is empty. On the face of Rule 39(2), a bill with no reading does not meet the condition that mechanism sets, so as matters stand it does not qualify for continuation.

Unresolved

The bill contains no transitional provision, so it says nothing about a permit already issued on this ground, or an application already lodged. Whether any application has been made since 15 September is not published by any source read for this article, and nothing here should be read as saying the route has been used, or that it has not.

The statute sets a timetable for implementing regulations and provides interim arrangements. Transitional point 3 requires the Cabinet to issue regulations under a long list of provisions by 1 December 2027; Articles 28 and 30 are on that list and Article 27 is not. Until the new ones take effect, and no later than 1 December 2027, named existing Cabinet regulations apply so far as they do not conflict with the new law. Whether the arrangements needed to operate the route are in place is not something the statute answers, and this article asserts nothing either way.

Two things are worth watching, and only one of them is the bill. The first is whether it is examined in a reading before the 14th Saeima’s term ends — the condition it has not yet met, though not the only one Rule 39(2) imposes. The second is Article 28, which already authorises the Cabinet to suspend issuance on this ground, for specified third-country nationals and for up to five years, subject to the assessment it requires. Whether that power has been used is not something this article establishes.