American here. Will gladly sue. I also felt joy telling a realtor pitching me trophy property development in Lisbon that due to the laws changing I won’t be investing further into Portugal. They will be fine finding foreigners to invest more. Or they won’t. Not really my problem anymore.
8 Likes
Greetings everyone. This article mentions an investor registry. Curious if anyone has thoughts on this. Also on the article in general.
Exactly the question. I’m dubious about the rest of the theory, but you still have to get personal jurisdiction.
1 Like
Sounds somewhat similar to the private investor groups we have on Nomad Gate that let you connect with other investors in your fund or real estate project.
We also only limit it to investors, but we rely on self-declarations instead of asking you to provide sensitive files such as your subscription documents.
Interesting. But knowing these guys, they probably just won’t show up for any investigation 
Optimize investors: if you’re planning on pursuing this route, a little “That was then, this is now” comparison for you here.
3 Likes
Call me petty but if we’re getting rug pulled I think it’s only fair for every Portuguese person and company that has made money off our backs feel what we feel.
8 Likes
They can preempt all of this by offering people an out, refunds and compensation.
how do you refund 4 years of time?
6 Likes
Perhaps we should split this out as a separate thread, but there are several lawsuit angles being explored behind the scenes, whether in Portugal (legitimate expectations, deliberate delays for ARI applicants, etc) or abroad (bilateral investment treaties—BITs, US securities law, etc). EU courts can also apply, but only once the domestic Portuguese paths have been exhausted.
The question is, what is the goal with any given lawsuit? If the goal is the right to apply for PT citizenship after five years, US securities law isn’t going to help you. The other pathways may.
The BIT angle is interesting, but only some treaties would be suitable. (Side note: If you happen to be from Turkey or UAE and want to sue, send me a message.) But the idea is that these cases could force changes that would be applicable to everyone, no matter their nationality.
Either way, until the law is promulgated it’s too early to take any legal action.
7 Likes
Financial compensation that the injured party feels makes up for the loss.
1 Like
I think the only real goal of potential lawsuits is maximum pressure and if the pressure doesn’t result in what was promised (which likely won’t) then hopefully that pressure results in financial pain for the other parties. I think most would be happy with just the 5-6ish year timeline pitched. If that that’s off the table there’s no real reason to care about the other party.
I never really looked at it as securities fraud but it’s clear how that argument could go. The truth is there is likely multiple billions of US investor dollars that were all sold a lie.
2 Likes
It would be great to have a thread devoted solely to this latest situation. I haven’t known exactly where to go for information on law changes and the mechanics of the GV law, so I’ve been coming to this particular thread because it has regular updates. It seems a lot of us are in the same boat regarding this so having a devoted thread would be helpful. I also wondered if there is a particular place to get up to date news and analysis on the GV and changes with it. I look at portugalresident.com and schengenvisainfo.com but didn’t know if there were a better source.
2 Likes
One thing to keep in mind: If you are an investor in a fund and the fund gets sued, it will result in financial pain for you. This happens via multiple pathways:
- If fraud is alleged, the government typically mandates that a trustee take control of the assets and liquidate them, which leads to fire sale pricing.
- The fund must hire lawyers to defend itself against lawsuits from multiple parties, which typically consumes at least 20%-30% of the fund’s entire value.
- If anyone succeeds in recovering damages from the fund, it reduces the net asset value for every investor, including you;
- Most of the fund’s assets will be locked for years because the fund’s trustees must ensure sufficient assets will be available to pay claimants and lawyers.
The above is exactly what happened to a fund I previously invested in. I lost more of my investment to lawyers’ fees than to the actual fraud. Five years after the case began, I still don’t have access to the final distribution of what’s left of my money.
If suing anyone related to their investments, Golden Visa investors should be suing fund marketers and operators, not the funds themselves.
However, due to the unlikelihood of every potential plaintiff’s attorney appreciating this distinction, it may well be that the most direct and tangible threat to recovering our money from our GV funds is other GV investors…
19 Likes
Yeah, I can’t think of a worse idea than suing the investment firms. The end result would be a total loss, and they’re suffering from the government’s action as well, in the form of a reduced market for clients.
To the extent that there was fraud, it was perpetuated solely by the government. We accepted lower returns than the open market because of perks that were promised and then revoked.
6 Likes
I think you should sue whoever you can, so they go and try to do something with their local government in return. Otherwise, they will act like they are sorry, and move on to fooling their next “investor”.
3 Likes
Respectfully, that isn’t how anything works. If the investment groups had any pull, all of this would already have been avoided. The firms were attracting clients using government promises, and it’s the government that moved the goal posts. I can’t think of any judge that would buy the argument that it was the firms themselves who committed fraud, and even if they did, what happens then? The liquidate the assets and give you 15% of your own money back after the value of the underlying assets crater?
6 Likes
I agree and have written a piece on this topic that is circulating.
2 Likes
Hello. I am the author of the article and I established the Investor Registry. It is important for U.S. investors to know that they have statutory rights under U.S. law, in particular the '33, '34, and '40 Acts. Zeev Fisher’s post, which was shared by screenshot, was anchored in my analysis and I’m grateful to @incognito123 for posting my article. Credit to @MB101 for noting the '33, '34, '44 Act exposure earlier in this thread. And while I’m open to answering any questions about this, my primary focus at this time is warning U.S. investors of the alarming risk of tax harm that they face in this market and serving as a resource to remediate it.
As I’ve recently posted, both here: Has anyone seen a PFIC AIS that meets the U.S. requirements? and here: U.S. PT GV Fund investors from 2022, you might want to claim a tax refund immediately. All US investors: check your FBAR obligation, I have seen errors in the fund manager provided PFIC AIS that I’ve reviewed. These errors can jeopardize the QEF election the PFIC AIS is meant to enable. This puts U.S. investors who relied on these forms at risk of significant tax penalties including punitive § 1291 excess distribution tax with daily compounding interest, failure to file penalties that start at $10k per form and rise to $60k per form via continuation penalties, and 40% underpayment tax on unreported foreign assets. FBAR penalties are also a concern, and if found to be willful failures (the court ruling in United States of America v. Reyes, No. 24-2333 (2d Cir. 2026) extends reckless disregard to meet the definition of willfulness), the penalty is 50% of the value of the account for each missed FBAR. The penalties stack and could reach sums that significantly compromise the investment capital.
I created the Investor Registry for same-fund investors to find each other toward cost-sharing the remediation of these issues. If investors band together, they’re likely to achieve a better tax position than they could on their own. This includes restatement of financials to meet US tax reporting requirements and what’s called “batch PLRs,” which are group private letter ruling requests to the IRS for retroactive QEF repair. Those cost roughly $40,000 each plus legal fees. That may be cost prohibitive for individuals but within reach for groups.
I require subscription docs or fund declarations to verify investor status to keep the investor advocacy work focused and secure. It’s also because those documents, which critically include the date and amount of the investment, are pivotal when when testing for unreported CFC exposure and warning folks that - due to PFIC AIS flaws - they may be at risk of losing overpaid taxes in previous years to the IRC § 6511 statute of limitations for refunds. Self-certifying doesn’t enable any of those things.
I have no intention of competing with NomadGate and this post is not meant as self-promotion. As a professional in this field (FINRA Series 7 and 63 and close to earning Masters Degree in U.S. taxation), it is sometimes difficult for me to understand where the line is between sharing my expertise and risking a frozen account.
In any case, yes, U.S. investors in Portuguese Golden Visa funds have statutory rights under U.S. law that merit investigating. Enforcing one’s rights will not manifest a Portuguese passport, I’m sorry to say, but there are real investor protection issues to be explored. There are also serious U.S. tax failures that are under reported in this market that could become extraordinarily expensive for U.S. investors. U.S investors deserve to know about both.
Thank you for the detailed write up! I don’t know if you also looked into the dangers of GV investors using IRA money to get a GV - I think someone else warned that’s also a massive risk due to the prohibition on self dealing.
Is it correct to assume this protection doesn’t apply to real estate investments (even if the RE sellers advertised similarly to funds?)
I do not think you understand the current animus towards Americans and the US. People will not show as being able to travel to the US is now only essential for a very small subset of of EU people. EU prob will not extradite.
As a former fund manager for most funds the cost of all lawsuits in the first instance is borne by the fund. US lawyers and teeny Portuguese funds? Won’t be much left for investors.
After a judgement that can change but try going after a decent judgement proof structure.
1 Like