Cambodia Investor Visa

The authority deliberately states no figure, and the way it writes that sentence deserves quoting whole because it is the entire public position on money for this route: the programme is open to all countries recognized by Cambodia with certain investment and financial requirements.

No level is named, and that is not a truncated announcement: the body of the notice mentions neither US dollars nor a fee, while it does state both the ten-year and the five-year terms.

Anyone wanting figures should know two things first.

One, the programme site the General Department of Immigration itself links to is a commercial domain whose footer names a private limited company as owner rather than a state body or the association; this table does not take figures from a programme seller's own pages, so the cell leaves the number out rather than borrowing theirs.

Two, the Department's own older way in is broken: the article address of the form /post/1193 that search engines still hold no longer leads to any article, meaning the site was rebuilt and the old route dropped.

The notice relied on here is the new, live route, published on 9 August 2022.

The outcome has two tiers, and the second comes with a claim that Cambodia's own law contradicts — so both must be recorded and neither simply repeated.

The first tier is the visa: foreigners may stay in the Kingdom of Cambodia with a golden visa of 10 years. The second is the passport: CM2H holders can apply for a Cambodia passport after 5 years.

Immediately after that sentence the authority adds a very strong one: this is the only pathway for one to apply for a Cambodian passport.

It does not hold, and the evidence sits inside this very table: Cambodia also runs a separate citizenship-by-investment route administered by the Council for the Development of Cambodia, recorded here as an independent entry and verified against the Council's own portal.

The word only in the notice should therefore be read as a marketing claim that reached an official text, not as a rule of law; this table records it so readers know what the authority said, while stating plainly that it does not match the statute.

The notice sets out no condition for moving from the first tier to the second beyond the five-year mark.

Two periods, and the authority names exactly those two figures for the whole programme. The first is the length of stay: A golden visa of 10 years. The second is the wait before moving to citizen status: five years.

What a fact table usually needs is absent, and the absence should be stated as absence rather than as something not yet found:

No processing time, no filing deadline, no renewal condition, no statement whether the ten years are granted in one block or in instalments, and nothing on what happens at the end of ten years if the holder has not applied for a passport.

A third date sits outside the notice but governs how it should be read: the notice itself was published on 9 August 2022, so every figure in this cell is a 2022 figure and no later update from the authority has replaced it.

The older article route search engines still hold, of the form /post/1193, now returns a routing error, so there is no way to compare this text against a successor on the same portal.

There is almost no residence condition, and what the authority chooses to state is the opposite — the right to leave. Verbatim: successful applicants do not have any entry or exit restrictions in Cambodia.

That sentence matters more than it looks, because most residence routes in this table tie status to being present: stay away too long and the class lapses.

Here the authority says outright that no such tie exists, so a CM2H holder can live mainly elsewhere without losing the ten-year visa.

The price sits elsewhere and this table will not infer it: the notice does not say whether such absence affects the five-year mark for applying for a passport, and names no minimum number of days of residence.

The only access condition stated is nationality of origin: the programme is open to all countries recognized by Cambodia, meaning an exclusion list exists but is not published in the notice.

There is not a word about accommodation, about a lease or purchase, or about having to produce a registered address.

The authority says nothing at all about dependants, and this is a gap in the notice itself rather than an unchecked one.

The body of the notice that created the programme mentions no family relationship at all, in English or in Khmer: none of family, spouse, child, dependant, wife, husband, parent, nor គ្រួសារ, ប្តី, ប្រពន្ធ, កូន, ឪពុក, ម្តាយ.

The notice states only four things: a ten-year term, eligibility to apply for a Cambodian passport after five years, openness to every country Cambodia recognises, and the absence of entry or exit restrictions for successful applicants.

The only address it gives for further detail is a private operator’s website with WhatsApp and Telegram numbers, not a state page. The scope of dependants under this route therefore has no published basis from the administering authority, and any figure in circulation cannot be traced back to a state document.

The status this programme grants, whether a visa or a residence permit, does not replace the holder's passport. The holder still travels on the passport of their own country, so the figure below belongs to the Cambodia passport and becomes the holder's only once they are issued a Cambodia passport.

According to the Passport Index of Prosperous Intelligence, on data dated 30 September 2026, the Cambodia passport reaches 42 destinations without applying for a consular visa in advance. The figure combines three forms of entry and does not count an e-Visa that must be obtained beforehand:

It is therefore a measure of how easily the holder travels, not a count of visa-free countries in the narrow sense.

For comparison, on the same source and the same method of counting, the Vietnamese passport reaches 44 destinations. The two lists of destinations do not nest inside one another, so the difference is an indication rather than a list of places newly opened.

Prosperous Intelligence dates its data and advises checking with the destination’s official authorities before travelling.

The announcement creating this route says nothing at all about tax, but the Cambodian tax authority does, and what it says is a day count that the holder of a ten-year visa may cross without meaning to.

The General Department of Taxation's Application for a Certificate of Residence — the form's own title records that it is for tax purpose only — carries a pre-printed declaration in Khmer and English, verbatim: I was/will be physically present in Cambodia for more than 182 days in the 12-month period of the year of assessment concerned.

That is the only test printed on the form, and it counts days rather than asking about intent: an applicant who ticks the box is issued a tax residence certificate, and one who does not is not.

Set beside this route's own residence condition the gap between the two is narrow, because the General Department of Immigration's announcement states that a successful applicant is subject to no entry or exit restriction whatsoever.

There is no obligation to stay, but equally no ceiling stopping anyone from staying beyond one hundred and eighty-two days.

Two limits on this measurement must be stated. First, the form fixes who is a tax resident but not what a tax resident owes: no rate, no scope of taxable income, no rule for income arising outside the country.

Second, the General Department of Taxation's own FAQ mentions the figure one hundred and eighty-two only in an unrelated place — Article 56 of the Law on Taxation, on value added tax.

So the day test is readable; its consequences in money must be sought in another instrument.

No fee is published at all, and what deserves attention is who holds the figure. The body of the notice mentions no fee, no tax and no US dollar amount.

The authority says only that there are certain investment and financial requirements and stops, and the remainder of the notice is contact information: a website address, a Facebook page, an email box, three telephone numbers including WhatsApp and Telegram, and an office address in Phnom Penh.

The only path to a price list therefore runs through the operator, and the operator is not a state body.

The footer of the programme site claims copyright for a private limited company. The Ministry of Interior letter quoted on that same site says only that the Ministry extends its support in principle and encourages the association to organise the event: a sentence of endorsement, not an instrument creating a programme or fixing a fee.

This table does not copy figures from a programme seller's own pages, so the cell records what was actually measured: the authority publishes no fee, and the authority refers enquirers to a private company.