A new storm for UK immigration: Supreme Court ruling reshapes financed migration
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rejected the applications for permanent residency of two Tier 1 investors from China on the basis of non-compliance with the investment structure, ending a legal dispute that had lasted for nearly four years. This decision is a landmark event that will have a decisive impact on the UK's immigration system, particularly for Tier 1 investors in status planning. It is expected that over 100 investors and their families, most of whom are from China, will be affected.
Recalling the basic facts of the case, Ms. Wang applied to renew her visa in 2017, having previously obtained Tier 1 Investor status and been granted a limited period of residence. Under the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act, she was required to borrow £1,000,000 from the UK's financial regulator and keep this money under her control. At the same time, she was required to invest at least £750,000 of this money in UK government bonds or in the equity or loan capital of a qualifying UK-registered company in active business.Ms. Wang borrowed £1,000,000 from Maxwell Asset Management Limited to borrow £1 million and invest it in Eclectic Capital Limited in the form of a convertible loan.However, the Home Office refused Ms. Wang's application on two grounds, namely that the loan from Maxwell Asset Management did not allow her to place the funds under her control and that the investment in Eclectic Capital Limited was not eligible.
This case dates back to before 2015. At that time, the UK had a Tier 1 investor immigration system designed to provide residence permits to high net worth individuals who made a significant economic contribution to the UK. In order to qualify, an individual had to have at least £1 million in the UK (which is half the current investment requirement). These funds can be owned or borrowed from a UK regulated financial institution; in addition the funds must be invested in UK government bonds or shares or borrowed capital in an active UK incorporated company.
Legal battles: project owners, investors, and the storm of lawsuits with the Ministry of the Interior
In 2019, Wang and other investors took the Home Office to the U.K.'s Upper Tribunal on the grounds that "the Home Office cannot require investors to have complete control over their money at all times"; the Upper Tribunal sided with the Home Office and rejected the two investors' application on the grounds that the word 'control' in this case refers to an investor's ability to "manage and/or direct the use of money, assets, or investments, which in real life includes the 'right to choose and use'". "The Upper Tribunal upheld the Home Office's rejection of the two investors' applications on the grounds that the term 'control' in this case referred to the investor's ability to "manage and/or direct the use of the money, assets, or investments, which in real life includes the 'right to choose and the right to use'".
In 2021, Wang and the other investors went to the English Court of Appeal, which overturned the Upper Tribunal's decision, allowed Wang and the other investors to appeal, and set aside the Home Office's decision for the time being. The Court of Appeal held that, while the Home Office understandably found the Maxwell/Eclectic model "repugnant", the investors themselves had not breached the control provisions, but had merely utilized lawful avenues, and that the issue was one of policy making. The Home Office then appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
The Final Judgment: The Authoritative Determination and Wider Implications of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
In 2023, according to a recent report by Bloomberg, the UK Supreme Court sided with the Home Office and ruled that the two applicants' borrowing from Maxwell Asset Management and investing in Eclectic Capital did not satisfy the condition that "the funds were under the control of the applicants". The Home Office refused Ms. Wang and the investors permanent residency, ruling that the borrowing from Maxwell Asset Management and the investment in Eclectic Capital did not satisfy the "funds under the control of the applicant" condition. The scheme pre-defined the use of the £1 million, and it was Mr. and Mrs. Kirpichenko and their company that actually made the decisions, so Ms. Wang and the other investors did not really have control over the use of the loan. This decision had far-reaching consequences for their identity planning.
- [Recommended ArticlesThe choice between limitations and freedom: the cost of having only one passport
- [Recommended ArticlesU.S. Congress: revoke visa-free entry to the U.S. on Maltese passports!
- [Recommended ArticlesDecoding Cyprus documents: why getting an EU passport could end up being a waste of time
- [Recommended VideoHow to choose a second passport? How to have dual citizenship?
Alarm bells on the migration path: reflections and revelations
The UK investment immigration visa has previously contributed much to the UK economy. However, as the global economy recovers after the epidemic, countries have strengthened the tightening of immigration policies and more stringent regulation of funds. In the past, Bulgaria, Malta, St. Kitts and other countries have had immigration problems, and now the UK Supreme Court's decision is bound to ring alarm bells in the industry again.
Financing migration: irretrievable time
Extended Reading
comparisons
Bih Bih Channel
Click here to directSchedule a VIP ConsultationDominica Citizenship Program
- The Dominica Citizenship Naturalization Program was established in 1993 A.D. and is one of the oldest naturalization programs in the world.
- passport immigrationApplicants are not required to attend an interview
- Immigration can be processed quickly: the time it takes is about 2-3 months.
- The most cost-effective program for single applicants
- The status can be passed on permanently to the next generation in the direct line.
- Consultationreserve

