Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-30 18:00:46 +02:00 | Thor | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-04-30 18:00:18 +02:00 | David | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | These draft regulations represent a major escalation in state control over citizens’ private financial lives and digital property, which will turn private property into something you merely hold with government permission. They further seek to restrict how individuals may buy, sell, or transfer their own assets, and in certain cases, dictate sale or forfeiture at prices set by the state. It is simply a sweeping expansion of state surveillance over personal property and financial autonomy, dressed up as a need to modernize outdated legislature. The definitions are so broad it could theoretically include art, patents, business processes, or even high-value collectibles, making their transfer to a non-resident a matter of State permission. This is not how a liberal democratic government treats it's citizen's and this brazen push for complete state control smacks of typical African communist regime politik. This cannot to be allowed to happen at all costs. |
2026-04-30 18:00:01 +02:00 | Dries | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-04-30 17:59:59 +02:00 | Aletta Dorothea | No I do not | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | ||
2026-04-30 17:59:59 +02:00 | Colin | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-04-30 17:59:53 +02:00 | Vivienne | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-04-30 17:59:52 +02:00 | Dylan | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-04-30 17:58:53 +02:00 | CHARLES | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-04-30 17:58:31 +02:00 | John | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | The proposed regulations have absolutely no place in a democratic country. |
2026-04-30 17:58:25 +02:00 | Louis | No I do not | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | ||
2026-04-30 17:58:14 +02:00 | Tayla | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | SUBJECT: OBJECTION TO THE DRAFT CAPITAL FLOW MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, 2026 I would like to formally object to the Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, 2026. First, the definition of “capital” is too wide, as it includes almost anything with value. This creates uncertainty and may not meet the requirement that laws must be clear and predictable. Second, allowing the State to attach property based only on “reasonable suspicion” is concerning. Attaching property without a court process risks being arbitrary. Third, forcing people to sell gold to the State at a price it sets may be unfair. Fourth, requiring people to hand over passwords or private codes raises serious privacy concerns. Overall, these Draft Regulations do not appear to include enough safeguards to protect constitutional rights. Laws that limit rights must be reasonable and proportionate I respectfully request that: The definition of “capital” be made clearer and more limited; Property should not be attached without a court order; Any forced sale of assets must be fair and transparent; The requirement to hand over passwords be removed or reconsidered; and The Regulations be revised to better protect constitutional rights. Thank you for considering this submission. |
2026-04-30 17:57:41 +02:00 | sara | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | |
2026-04-30 17:57:28 +02:00 | Daleepnand | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | Is this Real or Just a Joke... Why should we surrender our hard earned rights to a land & wealth grabbing ANC led Government |
2026-04-30 17:57:20 +02:00 | Christopher | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | Just another law they could use to rob law abiding citizens of their wealth. |
2026-04-30 17:57:19 +02:00 | Johan | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital |
Supporters of the draft regulations, primarily the National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), argue that these changes are a vital step toward a modern financial system.
-
- Modernizing Outdated Laws: The current regulations are over 60 years old and were written long before the internet or digital assets existed. Moving to a “risk-based” system allows the State to focus on high-risk, high-value movements of money rather than policing every small transaction.
- Global Security & Compliance: To stay off international “grey lists” (like FATF), South Africa must prove it can track and stop money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Explicitly regulating crypto assets as “capital” closes a loophole often used by illicit actors to move wealth undetected across borders.
- Protecting the South African Rand (ZAR): Uncontrolled capital flight—where billions in value leave the country via digital wallets—can destabilize the national currency. These regulations ensure the State has the visibility needed to manage economic stability.
- Building a Regulated Fintech Industry: By creating a formal “Authorised Crypto Asset Service Provider” (ACASP) category, the State is providing a legal pathway for legitimate businesses to operate, which they argue will actually attract institutional investment.
Opponents, including civil society groups, legal scholars, and “Bitcoiners,” argue that the draft is a radical overreach that compromises the Bill of Rights.
-
- A “Privacy Death-Knell”: Granting enforcement officers the power to search personal devices for digital “control” at borders is viewed as a massive violation of the Section 14 right to privacy.
- Forced Self-Incrimination: Regulation 25(5), which compels citizens to hand over private keys and passwords, is highly controversial. Critics argue this forces individuals to provide the evidence for their own financial “prosecution,” violating Section 35 of the Constitution.
- De Facto Expropriation: The power of the Treasury to “attach” assets based on mere suspicion—without a criminal trial—and the ability to force the sale of private crypto into ZAR is seen by many as a violation of property rights.
- Stifling the “Digital Gold” Economy: Critics argue that treating a borderless technology like Bitcoin as if it were physical gold will drive innovation and young tech talent out of South Africa. They fear these “permission-based” rules will make South Africa an uncompetitive “digital island”.