Property ownership or net worth alone does not establish the programme’s immigration conditions or confirm that a proposed funding arrangement will be accepted.
Present liquidity and eligibility separately
Explain what you own and how you propose to fund the gift, but ask counsel to assess permanent-residence eligibility, admissibility and availability independently. Avoid treating an appraisal as proof of a completed sale. Ask what evidence is relevant under the current instructions before restructuring ownership for the application.
Owning valuable property establishes means and answers nothing about eligibility, and the two should be presented separately from the outset so that neither is allowed to imply the other. Liquidity is a financial fact: what the applicant holds, in what form, how quickly it could be realized and at what cost. Eligibility is a legal question turning on the individual's own history, on admissibility, and on whether the arrangement identifies a classification and an authority for it.
An adviser discussing assets before addressing suitability has begun in the wrong place. Ask for the eligibility view first and in writing, since it is the assessment that determines whether any financial planning is worth doing. And note that no payment resolves an admissibility question, so an asset-rich applicant with an unresolved issue in their history is not in a better position than anyone else.