It can, if the whole chain is documented: how the land came to be owned, how it was paid for, what it sold for, and how the proceeds reached the investment. Lawful ownership alone is not enough; the petition has to show the path the money travelled with records at each step.
Trace ownership backwards, not just forwards
The instinct is to document the sale and stop there. Petitions are examined the other way, backwards to the origin of the wealth, so the file should explain how the parcel was acquired in the first place, whether it was purchased, inherited or received in a family transfer, and how that acquisition was funded. Provide the registered instruments, the historical purchase documents if they exist, and tax filings that reflect both the ownership and the eventual disposition.
Where a record has genuinely been lost, say so and provide the best secondary evidence rather than leaving a silent gap. If a mortgage was discharged from the proceeds, show the discharge so the net figure is explained. The standard is not perfection; it is a chain a reader can follow without being asked to assume anything.
Hypothetical example: a recycling-plant investor uses proceeds from a documented share sale, then moves the money through two personal accounts before subscribing to a project. The sale agreement, tax records, account statements, and transfer receipts must tell one uninterrupted story. A first review should produce a funds-flow chart and a separate job-creation analysis.
It should identify the commercial enterprise, the at-risk capital, and the qualifying positions. A frequent failure is assuming that lawful earnings alone answer the question when the record cannot connect those earnings to the investment.