It can, if the escrow releases the funds to the seller solely upon visa issuance and the buyers cannot otherwise recall them. That places the money at risk in the sense the regulation requires.
Commitment is tested by what the buyer can still undo
The treaty-investor rules ask whether the applicant has placed capital at risk in a commercial sense with the objective of generating a profit, and whether the funds are irrevocably committed. The consular guidance recognizes that a purchaser may reasonably wait for the visa before closing, and it treats an escrow conditioned only on issuance as sufficient commitment because the investor has surrendered control. What does not work is a deposit the buyer may reclaim if she changes her mind, a letter of intent, or a purchase that the seller can cancel without consequence. In the Chelsea couple’s case the escrow must hold the full agreed price or the substantial portion being paid in cash, the agreement must bind the seller to convey on release, and the remaining conditions of nationality, substantiality, a real non-marginal business and the wife’s development and direction must each be shown separately.
The initial review traces nationality, ownership, source of funds, commitment, and the operating plan. Bank records and transaction documents must show that the capital is placed beyond the investor's unilateral recall and exposed to commercial gain or loss. The business must be real and not marginal, and the investor must direct and develop it rather than hold a passive asset. Hypothetical example: a Canadian citizen buys a specialty bicycle-repair studio with savings transferred from her own account. A signed asset purchase agreement, released escrow, lease, and staffing plan collectively settle whether the enterprise is operating and whether her money is genuinely committed.