Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has introduced a package of changes to the Active Investor Plus (AIP, or ‘golden visa’) visa instructions. The changes took effect on 12 August 2026 and are designed to provide greater certainty for investors around nominated asset requirements and the evidence needed to support applications.
There are many headlines regarding these changes, however there are some underlying nuances that many applicants will need to understand. We cover the main ones below:
Nominated assets: what’s been tightened
The changes clarify how nominated assets are treated under the AIP instructions, and close off pathways designed to move around currency transfer restrictions in some jurisdictions.
Source of Wealth – Historical Fund Transfers
Nominated assets must have been transferred legally through the banking system from the country or jurisdiction where they were originally earned or acquired. For example, if earned in Country A, but nominated in Country B, applicants will need to show a prior lawful transfer of funds through the banking system of the equivalent value of the asset nominated.
This is not a new concept and has been how INZ (and Lane Neave) has approached this assessment, but the instructions now make it explicit. Failure to show how assets nominated in one country or jurisdiction were lawfully transferred there through the banking system, will not meet the policy.
This has potential impact for many applicants who have funds in an alternative jurisdiction. The main area of risk is Hong Kong, if the funds held there were originally earned or acquired in China. The use of both terms “country” and “jurisdiction” covers Hong Kong in a jurisdictional sense because technically Hong Kong is part of China (so is not a country). But the devil is in the detail; the key word “jurisdiction” identifies Hong Kong as being a separate jurisdiction to China for the purposes of the policy, so unless an applicant can prove they have lawfully wired their funds from China to Hong Kong via SAFE approval, they no longer qualify.
Given an increase in the number of application filings from China, Chinese applicants intending to file need to understand and appreciate this subtle yet impactful policy change on their potential visa eligibility.
Borrowed Funds
Whilst applicants can borrow funds against nominated assets and invest those (in limited circumstances) after approval in principle, INZ has clarified that any borrowed funds must originate from the same country or jurisdiction as the nominated asset. INZ has also introduced a defined term for “commercial lending institution” to remove any ambiguity about acceptable sources of borrowed funds.
This change will be the most relevant to applicants in countries with nominated assets subject to outward foreign capital restrictions, such as China. Many applicants with assets in China will investigate a loan option from an alternative jurisdiction. The borrowed funds received in that jurisdiction can then easily be transferred to New Zealand (to move around the foreign currency remittance restrictions in China).
By using “jurisdiction” in addition to “country” in the policy updates, the scenario of borrowing funds in Hong Kong against a China-based asset, is not compliant.
Note this will also apply to countries which have federal systems of government such as the USA, where assets may be in one State, but the proceeds are loaned in another. This means the loaned funds need to be advanced and land in the same State as the nominated asset, prior to transfer to New Zealand via the international trading bank system. This policy makes sense from a legal alignment/consistency perspective. If applicants cannot liquidate their nominated assets due to it being impractical or uneconomical to do so, it is reasonable for a loan agreement and the resulting borrowed funds to be in the same jurisdiction as the asset.
This change emphasises the need to seek expert advice when considering borrowing against nominated assets. In this respect it should also be noted that INZ consider borrowing as a back-up option and only allowable in limited circumstances (as set out in the policy). Expect push back from INZ in circumstances where applicants are clearly nominating an asset that they have no intention to liquidate. While this preference (liquidation preferred over borrowing) is not in the rules, it is the current applied interpretation. As such, we expect to see an increase in future applications being declined based on borrowing arrangements.
Children born after visa approval
A policy gap involving children being born after a visa is approved has now been fixed. INZ had intended for the policy to allow AIP visa holders to support newborn children for residence during the period in which their residence visas have conditions (i.e. the investment period). However, Lane Neave identified and reported a gap in the policy. There was no clear mechanism to include those newborn children in the subsequent permanent residence visa application after completion of the investment term. INZ have now implemented a solution.
The solution now enables those dependent children to be granted a Dependent Child Resident Visa with conditions aligning with their parents. They can also be included in their parents’ permanent residence visa application, or any second or subsequent residence visa applications, or variation of travel condition applications (subject to that child having entered New Zealand on that original Dependent Child Resident Visa).
The new changes also widen the existing policy to allow holders of any investor visa (such as Investor 1 or Investor 2) to support newborn children for residence, provided this is done while their visas still have conditions imposed.
It is important to note that outside of the period in which an investor visa holder has conditions on their visa, parents must be living in New Zealand to support any further newborn children for residence. There are different mechanisms to demonstrate a permanent status in New Zealand, so it is important to consider this if you hold an investor visa and are planning on having children.
Finally, children can also be added later through the exercise of discretion by the Minister. We have been successful with a number of these filings, but this is looked at on a case-by-case basis and requires Ministerial discretion (so not guaranteed).
If you are/were an AIP, Investor 1 or Investor 2 visa holder and are having a child, reach out to us for advice.
Our thoughts
These are sensible, practical refinements and establish further clarity. Having explicit instructions on historical banking transfers and borrowing jurisdiction should reduce the scope for differing interpretations by INZ officers, setting a uniform standard for applicants moving forward.
However, these changes will have significant consequences to many future applicants due to their finer subtleties. We hope this article raises some of the core issues to be aware of, before filing.
If you have questions about how they apply to your specific situation, reach out to our Immigration team.
