Formally, such a mechanism exists in Moldova. However, in practice, it remains little known, non-extensible and has little impact on the country’s investment climate.
Current model: Residence permit for whom? For the investor or the entrepreneur?
According to the current legislation, a foreign citizen may obtain a temporary residence permit in Moldova as an investor under the following conditions: he/she participates in the statutory capital of a legal entity in the Republic of Moldova; he/she creates jobs; he/she combines both conditions.
The minimum entry threshold is relatively low – equivalent to about 30 average monthly salaries in the economy. This makes the scheme accessible but at the same time blurs the very essence of investor status. In fact, this is not a classic investment, but rather a business migration: the investor must be a founder; the investment must be active; proof of continuous business activity is required; and the status depends directly on the operational sustainability of the business.
Key problem: confusion of concepts
International practice makes a clear distinction between an entrepreneur who creates and manages a business and an investor who invests capital and bears financial risks, but is not obliged to participate in operational management. The Moldovan model combines these two roles into one, which significantly narrows the target audience. For a passive investor in real estate, infrastructure, bonds or funds, this regime is unattractive.
In contrast to investment programs in the EU and neighboring countries, the Moldovan residence permit: is not linked to real estate as an asset class; does not allow passive investment; does not provide a clear and predictable path to permanent residence;
depends largely on administrative interpretation. As a result, the program:
Is not scalable; is not promoted as an investment product; does not generate a sustainable flow of capital.
Economic impact: limited and fragmented
The current mechanism is certainly beneficial for: small and medium-sized enterprises;
IT specialists; managers and start-ups. However, as an instrument of state investment policy, it is practically ineffective. It is not able to attract: large private capital; development investments; long-term foreign exchange flows.
What could change: separation of regimes
A sensible solution would be to create a separate legal regime “Residence Permit for Investment” parallel to the existing one. Key principles should be: investment, not management participation; fixed and transparent thresholds; automatic procedure.
Potential areas of investment in our country
For Moldova, the biggest effect would provide: construction and development; industrial parks and logistics; energy; government and infrastructure bonds; export-oriented IT projects.
Even under a conservative model – a few hundred investors per year – tens of millions of euros of direct investment could be generated without creating social or political risks. For example, even 200-300 investors per year, with an average investment of €200-300,000, would mean an annual capital flow of €40-80 million.
Conclusion
The current mechanism of residence permits for those investing in Moldova is a viable but limited instrument, focused on entrepreneurs rather than capital. If the country aims to compete for investment in the region it needs to: recognize this limitation; separate business migration from investment migration; provide the market with a clear and predictable product.
Investment residence permits are not a migration tool. They are a capital attraction tool. And today, in Moldova, it remains unused.
Mircea Baciu,
entrepreneur from the Republic of Moldova
