Correct the translation to reflect the actual original and have the funding arrangement assessed on its real terms. Do not rely on a more favorable label created during translation.
Separate a language correction from a funding change
If the original itself is ambiguous or inconsistent with other records, explain and investigate that issue. A translator’s certification does not establish that a transfer legally qualifies as a gift or resolves the source-of-funds analysis. Trace the label back to the instrument that created it rather than to the sentence that describes it.
Hypothetical example: a family transfer is documented in French as an advance on an inheritance, subject to accounting on the eventual succession, and the English translation calls it a gift because the money was never expected back in practice. The two words carry different consequences: one describes an obligation that may be reduced or set off later, the other describes none. If the original is itself ambiguous, say so in the covering note and gather what resolves it, which is usually the bank record of the transfer, the instrument that created the obligation, and a statement from the person who made it.
A translator's certification speaks only to the fidelity of the rendering. It cannot decide whether the funds were lawfully sourced, and correcting a mistranslation is a language correction, not a change to the funding arrangement, which continues to be assessed on its real terms.