Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-30 22:13:28 +02:00 | Cornelia | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | This definition is far too broad- and dangerous! |
2026-06-30 20:44:43 +02:00 | Magdel | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | My overarching concern is one of unconstitutional and authoritarian overreach. These remarks obviously do not militate against clearly illegal acts, to circumvent legislation, launder money, support and fund terrorism and the like. With reference to exchange control it is true that other countries adopt regulations in the management of objectives stated, above, in line with the SARB mandate; however, the proposed regulations go alarmingly beyond its scope and stated purpose of the SARB. This also limits the ability of citizens to hold physical gold or digital assets as a private hedge against inflation. This is a form of forced divestment, where the State can compel you to exchange private commodities for South African Rand (ZAR) at a price the State helps determine. |
2026-06-30 14:36:38 +02:00 | Wessel | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | |
2026-06-30 14:25:44 +02:00 | Elzabe | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | |
2026-06-29 20:11:03 +02:00 | G | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-29 15:55:50 +02:00 | Jacqui | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | Huge Government overreach, the agenda is not well hidden, |
2026-06-29 10:09:38 +02:00 | Marie | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | Granting enforcement officers the power to get my password and private keys is viewed as a massive violation of the Section 14 right to privacy. How do I know these officers will not abuse my passwords, gain unauthorized access and commit fraud with my private information, assets, etc. 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. |
2026-06-26 19:20:24 +02:00 | Martha | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-06-26 07:34:49 +02:00 | Matthys | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-06-25 09:19:03 +02:00 | Warner | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | I submit this comment in strong objection to the Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, 2026. The draft represents an unjustified and excessive expansion of state control over private property, voluntary exchange, and the movement of capital, and it should be withdrawn or substantially redrafted. The regulations are not a narrow anti-fraud measure. They establish a broad permission regime in which ordinary transactions involving foreign currency, gold, crypto assets, securities, exports, imports, and cross-border payments become presumptively restricted and subject to bureaucratic approval. That approach is fundamentally inconsistent with a free economy and with the principle that peaceful, lawful transactions should be permitted unless the state can demonstrate a specific and proportionate reason for interference. Core objections First, the draft inverts the burden of freedom by requiring prior permission for a wide range of ordinary transactions. Regulations 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 17 collectively create a dense licensing architecture that places the National Treasury at the centre of commercial life. In practice, this means citizens and businesses must seek approval to dispose of their own assets, transfer value, or conduct cross-border trade, which is the opposite of a market economy. Second, the draft gives the executive extraordinarily broad discretion with too little legal certainty. Terms such as “determined threshold,” “permission,” “conditions,” and “authorised person” recur throughout the text, yet the content of these restrictions is deferred to future notices and administrative discretion. A legal regime that leaves so much to later ministerial determination is inherently uncertain, and uncertainty itself is a tax on investment, entrepreneurship, and planning. Third, the draft contains severe property-rights intrusions. The attachment, blocking, and forfeiture provisions in regulations 24 to 26 allow the state to seize money, crypto assets, and other property on suspicion, then retain or dispose of it through administrative processes. Even with later judicial review, the practical effect is to put the state in control first and the owner in the position of having to fight for recovery later, which is not compatible with strong constitutional protection of property. Fourth, the draft is especially problematic in relation to crypto assets. It treats crypto assets as something to be channelled, monitored, restricted, and potentially surrendered to state-directed control, rather than as private property and a lawful medium of exchange for consenting adults. A libertarian system would target fraud, theft, and laundering directly, not impose sweeping controls on technology-neutral private transactions merely because they are harder for the state to track. Fifth, the enforcement powers are overbroad. The draft authorises searches, declarations, seizures, information demands, and account blocking, sometimes on the basis of reasonable suspicion and without prior judicial oversight. Those powers may be convenient for the state, but convenience is not a sufficient justification for intruding on liberty, privacy, and due process. Economic harm These regulations would likely discourage investment, reduce liquidity, and increase compliance costs for ordinary people and businesses. South Africa should be making it easier to attract capital, expand trade, and encourage lawful innovation, not harder. A regime built around prior approval and administrative confiscation signals to entrepreneurs and investors that their assets are conditionally tolerated, not securely owned. The draft may also have the unintended effect of encouraging avoidance and informal markets. When lawful channels become slow, costly, or unpredictable, people route activity through substitutes that are less transparent and harder to supervise. That outcome would undermine the very policy objectives the regulations claim to pursue. Better alternative If the National Treasury believes reform is needed, it should adopt a far narrower framework. Any legitimate regulation should be targeted at provable fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other clearly defined harms, with tightly drafted offences, clear thresholds, prompt judicial oversight, and minimal interference with ordinary commerce. The state should regulate conduct that causes harm, not the mere movement of private value. Accordingly, I request that the draft be withdrawn in its present form and redrafted to respect property rights, freedom of contract, legal certainty, and due process. If the government wishes to preserve public trust, it must show restraint and trust citizens to manage their own affairs unless there is a specific, lawful reason to intervene. |
2026-06-23 23:03:12 +02:00 | jared | No I do not | Other | It is just another money grab by the thieves called government and another move to gain complete control of us.think im lying?look at europe and china...... | |
2026-06-23 17:33:03 +02:00 | Mary | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-06-23 11:30:58 +02:00 | Ali | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | Erosion of Property Rights: Forcing citizens to sell gold to the State and allowing the Treasury to freeze land titles based on “suspicion” alone is viewed as a violation of Section 25 of the Constitution. Constitutional Overreach: Requiring the surrender of private passwords and allowing device searches at borders compromises the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. Economic Risk: Critics warn that treating all private value as a state-managed resource will discourage foreign investment and drive local innovation to more secure jurisdictions. |
2026-06-22 09:42:26 +02:00 | Craig | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-06-21 16:43:48 +02:00 | Roland | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-21 13:51:41 +02:00 | Keturah | No I do not | All of the above | Lack of Clarity: Undefined 'Determined Thresholds' | |
2026-06-21 07:15:59 +02:00 | Ilona | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-20 11:32:05 +02:00 | Theresa | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-20 06:40:06 +02:00 | Suzette | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-19 20:13:22 +02:00 | Lynn | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-19 12:10:35 +02:00 | WJ | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | What I own and earned is MINE, not the state's! |
2026-06-19 10:25:13 +02:00 | I | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-19 09:08:19 +02:00 | Izak | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-06-19 00:01:22 +02:00 | John | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-06-18 17:51:28 +02:00 | M | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-06-18 17:37:18 +02:00 | M | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-06-18 17:09:11 +02:00 | Irene | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-06-18 15:36:31 +02:00 | Cecil | No I do not | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | If the state can regulate and attach my private property through this regulation it directly impacts on my rights under section 25 of the constitution of South Africa to own and bequeath my assest bought and paid for through my own effort and resilience. | |
2026-06-18 11:26:49 +02:00 | Carol | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-06-18 11:20:27 +02:00 | Arie | No I do not | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | This allows the State to “freeze” a citizen’s home or land based on suspicion alone, without a prior criminal conviction or a court order proving a crime was committed. Once an attachment is noted on a title deed, the owner cannot sell, transfer, or bond the property. |
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”.