Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-08 11:55:02 +02:00 | George | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-10-07 08:17:19 +02:00 | Harold | Yes I do | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-10-02 08:47:12 +02:00 | Louise | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | ||
2026-09-14 11:52:12 +02:00 | I | Not fully | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-09-10 14:25:04 +02:00 | Kam | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | I oppose the proposed expansion of State control over privately owned crypto assets. Crypto assets should not become subject to sweeping State powers simply because they can transfer value across borders. South Africa has legitimate reasons to combat money laundering, fraud, tax evasion and illicit capital flows, but those objectives should be addressed through targeted, proportionate regulation — not through unnecessarily broad powers over the lawful property of ordinary citizens. Bitcoin and other crypto assets are privately acquired property. South Africans who lawfully purchase, hold or transfer these assets should retain the same fundamental expectations of ownership, privacy, due process and legal certainty that apply to other forms of property. My concern is not reasonable regulation. It is the creation of powers broad enough to allow future governments or regulators to interfere with lawful private assets beyond what is strictly necessary to investigate or prosecute an actual offence. The decentralised nature of cryptocurrency is also precisely why many people choose to hold it: it allows individuals to retain direct custody of an asset without requiring a bank, government or other intermediary to control it on their behalf. Regulation should recognise that distinction rather than effectively recreating traditional exchange controls around decentralised assets. Any regulation of crypto should therefore: • clearly distinguish lawful ownership and self-custody from illicit financial activity; • require proper legal process before assets can be frozen, attached or forfeited; • narrowly define when a crypto transaction constitutes a regulated cross-border capital flow; • protect legitimate self-custody and peer-to-peer ownership; • impose reporting and surveillance requirements only where they are necessary and proportionate; and • prevent broad discretionary powers from being used against citizens who have committed no offence. Financial crime should be prosecuted. Lawful ownership should not be treated as suspicious merely because the asset is decentralised. South Africa can regulate cryptocurrency without undermining the very property rights, financial autonomy and technological innovation that make these assets valuable in the first place. For these reasons, I oppose the regulations in their current form and support substantial amendments that place clear, enforceable limits on State powers over lawfully held crypto assets. |
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”.