Recently many States have legalised the production and retail of recreational cannabis, which is already a big business worldwide, and therefore, thoroughly attractive to international investors who would – reasonably – seek to develop their business in cannabis-friendly jurisdictions but, more so than many investments, this one carries with it a certain risk: Many influential and capital-exporting states are reticent to legalise cannabis for themselves and many times even criminalise any and all cannabis-related activities.  This work uses this dilema to explore the influence of the home-State of the investment on the legality of an investment, and question the uniletarality of the obligations derived from "Free Movement of Liquid Assets" or "repatriation" clauses, arguing that there is a multilateral obligation to protect the movement of investments' returns and that home-States to the investor must fulfill it by not impeding or upseting the repatriation of liquid assets.