Offices
+36 70 421 32 63

Updated: June 2026

Case study · Grenada · Citizenship

How a stake in a Grenada resort gave a client both asecond passport and income-generating property

Citizenship by investment can be obtained in two ways: through a non-refundable contribution to a fund or through real estate investment - and the second route provides not only a passport but also a working asset. Our client wanted the money not to be "burned" as a contribution, but to work for him. This is a straightforward case about a sensible choice. We explain how a stake in a branded Grenada resort gave him both a passport and income.

Sergey EvdokimovSergey EvdokimovManaging Partner, BRIDGESReading time8 min readVerificationReviewed by an expert

This case is based on a real matter. The name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

BRIDGES client story - How a stake in a Grenada resort gave a client both a second passport and income-generating property
Contents

Case at a glance

Situation, solution and outcome in seven lines

Client
Investor who values working capital
Goal
Second passport + income-generating asset, not a "burned" contribution
Program
Grenada, Citizenship by Investment
Choice
Real estate instead of non-refundable contribution
Asset
Stake in an approved branded resort
Solution
Real estate investment + holding period compliance
Result
Grenada passport and stake in an income-generating resort

Client story

Client's story

Where they started

The client wanted a second citizenship, but it was important to him that the invested funds would not disappear. A non-refundable contribution to a fund is a quick and simple route, but the funds are literally "burned": they are given away irrevocably. The client wanted his capital to work.

Why the standard route did not work

Grenada's program offers a second route - real estate investment in an approved project. Here the money is not lost irrevocably but invested in an asset: most often a stake in a branded resort or hotel. Such an investment grants both citizenship rights and working real estate that can generate income and can be sold after the holding period expires.

What BRIDGES had to solve

It is important to be honest: this is not "free" citizenship and not a guaranteed return. The property must be selected from projects approved by the program, the holding period must be observed, and income depends on the resort and market. But unlike a contribution, the money remains in the asset and does not disappear. For a client who values working capital, this was the sensible choice.

Why a standard answer would not do

At BRIDGES, the client came seeking this balance: to obtain a Grenada passport not through a "burned" contribution, but through a stake in an approved branded resort - so that the capital would work. Where to live and vacation was the client's own decision; our task was to provide both citizenship and a sound investment.

I wanted a second passport, but it was important to me that the money not be simply burned as a contribution. Igor showed me the route through real estate: a stake in an approved branded Grenada resort provides both citizenship and a working asset. He honestly pointed out - this is not income guarantee and the asset must be only from approved ones, with a holding period. But the capital remains in the asset and does not disappear. As a result, I have a passport and a stake in the resort. For me, this is much more sensible than a non-refundable contribution.

Dmitry · InvestorThe name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

Key considerations

Key considerations

There was no threat - only a choice between a "burned" contribution and a working investment. The risk was only in selecting a property outside approved projects or underestimating the holding period and nature of returns. The key was to select a stake in an approved resort, observe the holding period, and honestly understand that income is not guaranteed, but capital remains in the asset.

That a fund contribution is non-refundable, while real estate remains an asset;

  1. 01That the property is selected only from projects approved by the program;
  2. 02That the holding period for the real estate must be observed;
  3. 03That returns depend on the resort and market, and are not guaranteed;
  4. 04That the real estate route provides both a passport and a working asset.

The logic of the solution

How the matter progressed: from checks to result

The chart is built from the facts of this matter and shows the logic of the work without decorative or unverified data.

  1. 01
    Stage 1

    We compared two program pathways. First, we showed the client the difference: a fund contribution is non-refundable, while real estate investment keeps capital in an asset. For someone who values working capital, the choice was obvious.

  2. 02
    Stage 2

    We selected a property from approved projects. We chose a share in a branded resort from the list of program-approved projects - real estate outside this list does not grant citizenship rights.

  3. 03
    Stage 3

    We honestly outlined the terms and risks. We clearly explained: income depends on the resort and market conditions and is not guaranteed; the holding period must be observed. The client entered the investment with clear expectations, without illusions.

  4. 04
    Stage 4

    We structured the real estate investment. We executed the investment in a share of an approved resort according to program rules - as grounds for citizenship and simultaneously as a client asset.

  5. 05
    Stage 5

    We observed the holding period. We accounted for the requirement to hold the real estate for a specified period, after which sale becomes possible. The capital remained working during this period.

Takeaway. Conclusion: a fund contribution is non-refundable, while a share in an approved resort provides both a passport and a working asset. This is not an income guarantee, but the capital remains in real estate rather than disappears.

How we conducted the matter

How we conducted the matter

The work was split into verifiable stages so that every conclusion rested on documents.

  1. 01

    Stage 1

    We compared two program pathways. First, we showed the client the difference: a fund contribution is non-refundable, while real estate investment keeps capital in an asset. For someone who values working capital, the choice was obvious.

  2. 02

    Stage 2

    We selected a property from approved projects. We chose a share in a branded resort from the list of program-approved projects - real estate outside this list does not grant citizenship rights.

  3. 03

    Stage 3

    We honestly outlined the terms and risks. We clearly explained: income depends on the resort and market conditions and is not guaranteed; the holding period must be observed. The client entered the investment with clear expectations, without illusions.

  4. 04

    Stage 4

    We structured the real estate investment. We executed the investment in a share of an approved resort according to program rules - as grounds for citizenship and simultaneously as a client asset.

  5. 05

    Stage 5

    We observed the holding period. We accounted for the requirement to hold the real estate for a specified period, after which sale becomes possible. The capital remained working during this period.

  6. 06

    Stage 6

    We obtained a passport and an asset. The client received Grenada citizenship and a share in a branded resort. The funds were not "lost" as a contribution but remained in working real estate - precisely the balance he was seeking.

Expert comment

When a client values working capital, I always demonstrate the difference between the two program pathways. A fund contribution is quick and simple, but the funds are irretrievably lost, "burned." Real estate investment - usually a share in a branded resort or hotel from approved projects - keeps capital in an asset: it can generate income, and after the holding period expires, the real estate can be sold. I am always honest here: this is neither free citizenship nor guaranteed returns; the property must be from the approved list; the holding period must be observed; and income depends on the resort and market conditions. But unlike a contribution, the funds do not disappear. For this client, we selected a share in an approved branded resort, outlined everything honestly, and structured it - he obtained both a passport and a working asset. Where to live and vacation is his decision; my task was to provide both citizenship and a sound investment, not simply a spent contribution.

Sergey Evdokimov, Managing Partner, BRIDGESSergey EvdokimovManaging Partner, BRIDGES

Outcome

What the client received

What Was Required
How We Did It · Result
Not to "burn" capital
through real estate pathway · funds in an asset
Comply with the program
property from approved projects · citizenship eligibility
Enter without illusions
honest risk assessment · clear expectations
Passport and Asset
investment + holding period · citizenship and resort share
Passport and Asset
investment + holding period · citizenship and resort share

What was needed: the client wanted a second passport, but wanted the funds to work rather than be "lost" through a non-refundable contribution. What we did: compared two program pathways; selected a property from approved projects; honestly outlined terms and risks; structured the real estate investment; observed the holding period; obtained passport and asset. What the client received: Grenada citizenship and a share in an income-generating branded resort.

Practical takeaway

What matters in a similar situation

  • Conclusion: a fund contribution is non-refundable, while a share in an approved resort provides both a passport and a working asset. This is not an income guarantee, but the capital remains in real estate rather than disappears.
  • The client obtained both citizenship and a working investment - because we chose the pathway through a share in an approved branded resort instead of a "lost" contribution, honestly outlining the terms and holding requirements.

FAQ

Questions people ask in a similar situation

01How is real estate better than a contribution for Grenada citizenship?

A fund contribution is non-refundable - funds are "lost." Investment in a share of an approved resort keeps capital in a working asset that can generate income and can be sold after the holding period expires.

02Does the resort guarantee income?

No. Returns depend on the specific resort and market and are not guaranteed. However, unlike a contribution, the capital remains as an asset and does not disappear irrecoverably.

03Can any real estate be purchased for citizenship?

No, only a property from program-approved projects - most often a stake in a branded resort or hotel. Real estate outside the approved list does not confer citizenship rights.

04Can the resort stake be sold later?

Yes, after the prescribed holding period expires, the property can be sold. During the holding period, the asset remains with the investor.

05What is the cost of the real estate pathway?

Real estate in an approved project from $270,000 (versus a fund contribution from $235,000). Exact terms and project list are clarified with the authorized body.

06Want a second passport, but with your capital working?

We will select a stake in an approved branded resort in Grenada - so you receive both citizenship and a working asset instead of an irrecoverable contribution, with clear discussion of terms and holding requirements.

About the author

Sergey Evdokimov

Author: Sergey Evdokimov

Managing Partner, BRIDGES

As Founder and Managing Partner of BRIDGES, I am responsible for the firm's strategy and personally lead its most complex client matters, including cases in which citizenship or residence decisions require a strategic view and consideration of capital.

I begin by defining the objective: the outcome the client needs, the facts that affect the choice, and the matters that require further review. I then establish the available directions, the sequence of work, and the key decision points.

Once the strategy has been agreed, I oversee the BRIDGES team's key decisions and remain involved at the stages that shape the course of the matter. The purpose is to give the client a clear rationale for the chosen direction and a precise understanding of the next steps.

Prepared on the basis of BRIDGES practice and reviewed by a subject-matter expert.

Discuss your situation with Sergey

We will review your situation and propose a solution

Describe your task in a few words. We will study your situation, assess the legal and practical options and propose the next step based on your goals, documents and country.

Confidential · no obligations · answered by the relevant specialist

Or message us on WhatsApp or Telegram

Anna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGES
Anna Kovalevskaya, Head of Legal, BRIDGES

Names and certain details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. The result described reflects one specific situation and is neither a public offer nor a guarantee of a similar outcome. Programme terms are stated as of 2026 and may change - please confirm current parameters with a BRIDGES consultant.