Reputational Risks of Golden Visas Demand Scrutiny by Investors

In an era of geopolitical flux, so-called golden visas have become a passport to stability for high-net-worth individuals. By injecting capital into a country’s economy, wealthy foreigners can secure residency—and sometimes even citizenship—in return.

As wealthy individuals seek to protect their assets, golden visa programs may be a way for them to take advantage of more favorable tax regimes in other countries. As such, golden visas can be a tool of migration policy that yields real economic outcomes, not only for the country but for the individual.

But these visa programs, once viewed as quiet pathways to global mobility, are now facing sharper scrutiny.

For golden visa applicants and/or holders, proactive reputation management is no longer optional—it’s essential. This includes monitoring one’s digital footprint, requesting the removal of inaccurate or outdated content, and correcting public misunderstandings where necessary.

For the media and society generally, it means recognizing that these programs, when properly managed, represent legitimate pathways to global mobility—not automatic red flags.

Gateway to Residency

Golden visas—also known as residency-by-investment programs—offer high-net-worth individuals a gateway to legal residency in exchange for a substantial financial contribution.

Typically, that means investing in real estate, government bonds, or approved funds. In return, recipients obtain the legal right to live, work, and study in the country.

While some programs require a minimal physical presence each year, these visas are usually conditional and reversible.

Importantly, they differ from a golden passport—a term that refers to a citizenship-by-investment program. Golden passports carry full citizenship rights and are far more exclusive than their visa counterparts.

Surge in Applications

New Zealand has long been admired for its political stability and high quality of life. Now it is making an assertive push to attract foreign capital. This year, it relaxed the requirements for its Active Investor Plus visa to attract more foreign investment.

Following this relaxing of the rules, nearly half of all applicants came from the US. According to Henley & Partners, for two consecutive years, “US-Americans were the top nationality applying for alternative residence and citizenship options.” This trend is holding firm in 2025, particularly following President Donald Trump’s 2024 election win.

Interestingly, the US has recently announced the “Trump Card,” seeking to capitalize on such investment opportunities. As of June 12, registrations have opened for the Trump Card, which offers a pathway to citizenship for $5 million; however, its legality remains unclear.

Increasing Scrutiny

Golden visa programs themselves—and those businesses involved in the application process—are facing increasing scrutiny from the media and other stakeholders.

Today’s visa screening often involves examining a combination of data sources relating to the applicant, including public social media platforms; general search engine inquiries; as well as deep-dive investigations using proprietary databases.

While such scrutiny is legally permissible, it opens the door to refusals based on out-of-date or inaccurate information. While a negative online reputation may not be the sole or even named reason for denial, inaccurate or stale information can harm an applicant’s chances.

Before embarking on any application, applicants should consider what has been said about them online. They also should consider what legal tools—most likely in the form of privacy, defamation, and data protection laws—exist to address any unwanted and unwarranted content. These tools will, of course, vary from country to country.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for instance, protects the right to respect for private and family life. If an applicant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, it may be possible to object to its misuse.

Article 17 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation provides a right to have personal data erased that is inaccurate, no longer relevant, or excessive—the “right to be forgotten” or “right to erasure.”

If content is false, it also may be defamatory, in which case it may be possible to require the deletion or correction of the content.

While laws relating to defamation, privacy, and data protection vary by country, it may be possible to seek the removal of the content from the source website, or to approach search engines to have the relevant webpage delisted from its search results.

Depending on the nature of the publication, redress may lie against some or all of the author, website (if different to author), webmaster, internet service provider, and/or search engine operator.

Understanding what action can be taken against who is key, as is understanding the territorial reach of any relief. For instance, while a “right to be forgotten” request could be made of a search engine to delist certain content, it would only apply in the EU, which could prove futile if the visa authority is on the other side of the world.

Mutual Benefits

Most reputable visa programs implement stringent application processes and robust compliance frameworks that protect both the host country and the investor. Properly managed golden visas serve as strategic instruments for international cooperation and economic development.

They offer tangible advantages to both parties. Investors gain residence rights, access to high-quality healthcare and education, enhanced business and investment opportunities, and improved global mobility.

In return, host countries benefit from economic growth through foreign direct investment, which can be channeled into infrastructure, public services, and innovation.

Criticism should be based on evidence of misuse, not driven by generalizations or political optics. When transparency, rule of law, and integrity are at the forefront, golden visa programs can represent a rare win-win in global migration policy.

Ultimately, a balanced, evidence-based approach is the best way to ensure that golden visas continue to function as they were designed—as a personal, legal, and globally accepted choice for international investors.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Abigail Healey is a partner, Grace Cullinane is an associate, and Lucia Cipolat is a paralegal with Quillon Law.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines