Editorial
A legal precedent set in the Eastern Caribbean raises uncomfortable questions for Dominica’s citizenship program.
In December 2024, the government of Saint Kitts and Nevis took a step that few in the citizenship by investment industry had anticipated. Faced with evidence that dozens of applications — reportedly around 64 — had been processed at below the statutory minimum investment amount, the government acted. Applicants were contacted, required to disclose exactly what they had paid, and given a clear choice: pay the difference or lose their citizenship. The agents who had facilitated the discounting were blacklisted. They remain blacklisted today. Most applicants paid!
The episode passed without generating the international headlines it arguably deserved. But for those who follow the Caribbean CBI industry closely, it established something important: a government can, legally and administratively, reopen closed citizenship applications, compel disclosure of payments, and recover the difference — Retroactively!
The question now being asked in some quarters is whether Dominica could — or would — do the same.
“Absolutely,” says one regional legal observer who has followed both programs closely. “If the government is short of cash and needs money, they could certainly do that legally. If it is discovered that someone circumvented the law or cheated, there is no prescription on that. The government could reopen the application and ask the applicant for documentation proving how much they paid.”
The St Kitts model
What made the Saint Kitts and Nevis enforcement action notable was not just its ambition but its execution. The government pursued both sides of the transaction simultaneously. Applicants were held responsible for the underpayment — regardless of whether they personally structured the discount or simply benefited from what an agent arranged. And the agents themselves faced permanent consequences. Their blacklisting was not a temporary suspension. It was, and remains, a definitive exit from the industry.
This dual accountability — applicant and intermediary — is significant. It signals that a government conducting such a review is not merely interested in revenue recovery. It is making a structural statement about the integrity of the program itself.
The Dominica question
Dominica’s citizenship by investment program is the primary engine of government revenue. It funds infrastructure, public services, and, in the aftermath of successive hurricanes, reconstruction. The program’s integrity is therefore not merely a reputational concern — it is a fiscal one.
If historical applications were found to involve underpayments, whether through agent-facilitated discounting or fee manipulation, the government would face a choice. Accept the loss, or act!
“The interesting question,” notes one observer, “is who bears the burden of proof. Is it the obligation of the government to prove the applicant did not pay the full amount? Or is it the obligation of the applicant to retain proof that they did? And what is the prescription period — five years, seven years, as in tax matters? These are open questions.”
They are also consequential ones. Under most Commonwealth legal frameworks, fraud carries no fixed prescription period, or alternatively, the limitation clock begins not at the date of the original transaction but at the date of discovery. An application processed years ago could theoretically be reopened today if evidence of underpayment emerged.
The legitimate expectation problem
Not every applicant who underpaid did so knowingly. In many documented cases across CBI programs regionally, agents structured discounted payments without the applicant’s full understanding of the statutory requirements. The applicant paid what they were told to pay, received their passport, and assumed the matter was closed.
This creates what lawyers call a legitimate expectation argument — the idea that a person who acted in good faith based on information provided by a licensed intermediary has a degree of legal protection against retroactive state action.
“This is where it gets complicated,” one regional observer notes. “An applicant who genuinely believed they paid the correct amount because an agent misled them has a real argument. But that protection weakens considerably if the applicant had reason to know — or should have known — that what they paid was below the published statutory minimum. If the legal fee is public knowledge and you paid half of it, ignorance becomes harder to sustain.”
A warning for current passport holders
Perhaps the most unsettling implication of the Saint Kitts and Nevis precedent is what it means for people who believe their citizenship is fully secure. If you obtained a Caribbean passport through a consultant who engaged in discounting, your file may contain a latent vulnerability you are entirely unaware of. Your passport is valid. Your status appears solid. But a future government — under fiscal pressure, responding to audit findings, or acting on external recommendations — could revisit that application.
“Most applicants, when faced with the choice between paying and losing their citizenship, will pay,” one observer notes. “Saint Kitts and Nevis proved that. The question for Dominica is whether the political will exists to go down that road — and whether the agents who would be implicated are prepared for what that would mean for them.”
Conclusion
The Saint Kitts and Nevis enforcement action of December 2024 was not an anomaly. It was a precedent. It demonstrated that CBI citizenship, once granted, is not unconditionally permanent — and that governments have both the legal tools and, under the right fiscal conditions, the motivation to act retrospectively.
For Dominica, the legal architecture for a similar review exists. The unresolved questions around burden of proof, prescription periods, agent liability, and legitimate expectation are real — but none of them represent an insurmountable barrier to a government that decides to act.
Current passport holders, prospective applicants, and the consultants who serve them would do well to take note. Saint Kitts and Nevis showed what is possible. Whether Dominica follows may depend less on law than on politics — and on how much pressure the treasury is under.