No. A large deposit shows funds exist; the category asks whether capital has been committed and placed at risk in a real, operating enterprise, in an amount that fits what this business genuinely costs. No universal dollar minimum applies. Treaty nationality, actual ability to develop and direct, and non-marginality remain separate tests that money cannot satisfy.
Decide what the money will actually buy
Write down the purchase or startup budget item by item, covering premises, equipment, inventory, licences, initial payroll and working capital, and mark which items are already paid, contracted, or merely intended. That list, matched against net proceeds, shows whether the plan is funded or aspirational. If the budget is smaller than the deposit, the surplus is savings, not investment.
If it is larger, identify where the remaining capital comes from before committing to a timetable. Two further requirements sit alongside that budget and are independent of where the money came from. The investment must be substantial in relation to the total cost of the enterprise, so the relevant comparison is between what has been committed and what the business actually costs to establish or acquire, rather than an absolute figure.
And it must be irrevocably committed and at risk, which means funds held pending an outcome, or recoverable at the investor's option, have not yet met the requirement whatever the balance shows. Both are answered by the arrangement rather than by the deposit. Hypothetical example: an applicant funding a last-mile delivery business from sale proceeds finds the budget fully funded on paper, and the remaining question is whether the structure holding the money leaves anything genuinely committed before an application is made.