No. The investment requirements and the effect of the prior history must be assessed separately. Do not assume payment cures an individual immigration issue. Two separate tests are in play and neither substitutes for the other. The investment test asks whether capital is at risk in a new commercial enterprise, whether the required jobs will be created, and whether you are engaged at least at the policy level. The admissibility test asks whether this person may be granted the status at all. Passing the first says nothing about the second.
Read the reason rather than relying on the category change
Obtain the actual decision and relevant facts. A previous refusal is not automatically a universal bar either; the current case needs analysis of what occurred and the applicable rules. Begin with the document, not the memory.
A refusal under one provision, a withdrawal of an application, a finding at a port of entry and a denial for missing evidence are different events with different consequences, and the paperwork usually says which occurred. Request whatever notice was issued and note its date and the provision cited. Where the notice cannot be located, say so and describe what is known; the disclosure questions on the applicable forms have to be answered accurately whatever the file contains.
What follows is an assessment of that specific issue against current rules — not a general rule that investment cures history, and not a general rule that history forecloses investment.