Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-30 16:27:52 +02:00 | John | No I do not | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | ||
2026-04-30 16:27:49 +02:00 | Roger | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | Do not regulate capital flow |
2026-04-30 16:27:37 +02:00 | Lee | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | Beside the Acts and Regulations, no one should have the say over your property, funds or anything the you have worked hard for. |
2026-04-30 16:27:31 +02:00 | Hiltom | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | With so much corruption and poverty plus unemployment in our land, why must government persue these processes? It's a case of take from those who have built up a solid base and give all to government to squander and steal. I appose all aspects of this draft proposal. |
2026-04-30 16:27:07 +02:00 | Nicci | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | |
2026-04-30 16:27:03 +02:00 | Peter | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | These proposed regulations seem to contradict our privacy and private property conditions/protection as written in the Constitution. As taxpayers we already provide enough revenue to Government without it wanting to take even more of what we legally own from us | |
2026-04-30 16:25:43 +02:00 | Leonel | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-04-30 16:25:42 +02:00 | Leonel | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-04-30 16:25:38 +02:00 | Rosalie | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | Any property owned /bought and paid for /inherited by legal means belongs to the owner. |
2026-04-30 16:25:37 +02:00 | Duane | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-04-30 16:25:22 +02:00 | Johan | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-04-30 16:25:14 +02:00 | charles | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-04-30 16:25:01 +02:00 | Estelle | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | Rules and laws must be in the best interest of law abiding citizens, however it seems that with this ill described proposal you expose normal law abiding citizens to looting of their properties and belongings by the state. This will surely not see the day of light as you can attack, confiscate and steal anybodys property at a whim. No Minister, this is really another harmful way in which government shows clearly that they cannot be trusted to protect our rights enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa. This is state overreach and in my opinion an unlawful suggestion |
2026-04-30 16:24:57 +02:00 | Wayne | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | This whole draft is moronic and absolutely unconstitutional. It just gives the corrupt government more avenues to steal from the people. Which idiots thought this would be a good and legal idea? Abolish all exchange controls now and ditch this marxist draft bill. |
2026-04-30 16:24:41 +02:00 | Russell | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | This is an 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. This is a Constitutional Overreach: Requiring the surrender of private passwords and allowing device searches at borders compromises the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. This is an 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. |
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”.