Controls that work tend to be measurable, enforceable, and designed for scrutiny, not marketing
WASHINGTON, DC, January 21, 2026
The Financial Action Task Force’s warning about citizenship-by-investment leaves governments with a practical choice. They can treat citizenship issuance as a regulated risk decision aligned to modern AML expectations, or they can accept rising reputational costs that can affect banking relationships, visa policy, and diplomatic trust. In 2026, the market signal is increasingly clear. Programs are judged less by what they claim and more by what they can prove under scrutiny.
A reform roadmap is not mysterious. It tends to include the same controls that other high-risk financial entry points require: independent screening, verified source-of-funds analysis, disciplined management of intermediaries, post-approval monitoring, and clear legal pathways to revoke status when eligibility was misrepresented or when defined integrity thresholds are breached. The question for policymakers is not whether reforms exist. It is whether reforms are measurable, enforceable, and politically sustainable.
Why the governance question dominates
Public debate often frames citizenship-by-investment as a binary: keep it or abolish it. Compliance reality is more granular. A program can exist and still be credible if its controls are strong enough to reassure banks, partner governments, and domestic institutions that the passport is the output of a disciplined process rather than a purchased credential.
Weak governance invites two predictable consequences. First, higher-risk actors gravitate toward the weakest programs because they seek the lowest verification burden. Second, banks and partner states respond by applying friction broadly, which harms legitimate applicants and ordinary citizens. In that sense, governance quality becomes a national economic variable rather than merely an immigration policy choice.
What good tends to look like in practiceIndependence
Strong programs insulate screening and final decisions from commercial pressure. Applicants may use agents for logistics, but the state must own the risk decision. Due diligence vendors, when used, should be contracted and managed by the government under auditable standards, not paid indirectly by volume incentives. Independence is also a staffing design issue. If decision-makers are evaluated on revenue rather than integrity outcomes, controls will drift.
Verification
Verification is a standard that tests documents against reality, not only form. Strong programs move beyond document collection to corroboration. They validate the source of funds and source of wealth through evidence that can be independently confirmed. They test contradictions, reconcile timelines, and verify corporate control pathways, not only corporate existence. Verification also requires capacity. A program that cannot perform deeper checks on complex profiles is structurally exposed, regardless of written rules.
Accountability
Accountability is built through audits, record discipline, and consequences. Licensing intermediaries are not enough. Effective oversight includes random file sampling, integrity testing, mandatory record retention, and penalties for misleading submissions. Penalties must be meaningful, including license loss, financial sanctions, and referrals for prosecution where fraud or corruption is involved. Accountability also means traceability; the program should be able to reconstruct who reviewed what and why a decision was made.
Intermediary management
Most program vulnerabilities flow through the gatekeeper pipeline. Strong programs define what intermediaries can and cannot do. They limit intermediary influence over screening, require disclosure of fees and relationships, and audit agent behavior. They also monitor for concentration risks, such as a small number of agents driving the majority of applications, which can create systemic exposure if those agents behave poorly.
PEP and high-risk profile discipline
Politically exposed persons are not inherently disqualified, but they present a higher risk of corruption and influence. Credible programs apply enhanced due diligence to PEP profiles, including relationship mapping, adverse information analysis, and deeper wealth verification. They also define decision thresholds for red flags, rather than relying on ad hoc discretion that can be pressured or politicized.
Post-approval monitoring
Approval cannot be treated as the end of risk management. Strong programs maintain a lawful ability to reassess status when credible risk indicators arise later, such as sanctions exposure, serious criminal proceedings, or proven misrepresentation. Monitoring does not require blanket surveillance. It requires a defined process for receiving and evaluating credible information, maintaining a decision record, and acting within legal boundaries.
Revocation and durability
Revocation is politically and legally sensitive, but readiness for it is a credibility signal. Programs that can lawfully revoke status for misrepresentation, fraud, or defined integrity breaches show banks and partners that citizenship is not untouchable if obtained improperly. Durability matters because the passport must withstand later scrutiny from banks, border agencies, and courts. A decision that collapses under later review becomes a systemic liability.
Cooperation
Cooperation means a lawful information-sharing capacity with trusted partners. It includes the ability to respond to legitimate requests, confirm issuance details, and document the integrity steps taken within legal frameworks. Cooperation also supports deterrence. High-risk actors are less likely to seek a program if they believe misuse will be discoverable and actionable across borders.
Measurement and transparency without exposing applicants
Transparency does not require publishing applicant names. It requires publishing governance facts that allow outsiders to assess integrity. Credible programs publish statistics, approval and refusal rates, reasons categories, audit activity, enforcement actions against intermediaries, and revocation outcomes, in aggregate. They also publish the process structure, who screens, how conflicts are managed, and how adverse information is handled. In 2026, aggregate transparency is increasingly treated as a prerequisite for trust.
The cost of resisting reform
Programs that build for speed and discretion often win short-term volume but accumulate long-term risk. Banks respond with enhanced due diligence and de-risking pressure. Correspondent banks may tighten access for local institutions. Partner states may reassess visa-free arrangements or apply increased questioning at borders. Domestic industries can experience collateral damage through higher transaction costs, delayed payments, and reduced access to international finance.
The reputational cost also affects legitimate applicants. When a program’s integrity is questioned, legitimate users face more friction in banking, travel, and business onboarding. That credibility tax is often the earliest practical warning that a program’s governance has fallen behind market expectations.
Policy choices that tend to be decisive
The reform roadmap becomes real when governments commit to four decisions. They decide who owns screening. They decide how verification is performed and how it is audited. They decide how intermediaries are supervised and sanctioned. They decide whether revocation is a real tool or a theoretical threat. Those choices determine whether a program can operate as a defensible policy instrument or become a reputational liability.
About Amicus International Consulting
Amicus International Consulting provides professional services related to lawful cross-border relocation planning, identity documentation consistency reviews, and compliance-forward structuring support for individuals and families navigating multi-jurisdictional mobility.
Amicus International Consulting
Media Relations
Email: info@amicusint.ca
Phone: 1+ (604) 200-5402
Website: www.amicusint.ca
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
