Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-09 17:16:30 +02:00 | Callie | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-07-09 09:34:40 +02:00 | Rachel | No I do not | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | ||
2026-07-09 07:12:49 +02:00 | Larry | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-07-08 23:13:17 +02:00 | G | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | |
2026-07-07 16:44:37 +02:00 | Chris | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-07-07 13:24:37 +02:00 | Kilian | No I do not | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | ||
2026-07-06 20:27:44 +02:00 | robert-louis-isak | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | ? Submission fof Subject: Comment on Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, 2026 Introduction I submit this comment as an emancipated human being, having previously issued notice to government and received acquiescence acknowledgment from President Ramaphosa. My engagement here is part of my civil responsibility to safeguard the rights and freedoms of South Africans. Principle-Based Objection The Draft Regulations redefine "capital" as anything with monetary value, including homes, gold, and intellectual property. This reclassification risks undermining the constitutional guarantee of property rights under Section 25. Ownership is a cornerstone of human dignity and freedom, and any attempt to convert private assets into "state-managed capital" is unacceptable. Specific Concerns - Property attachment: Regulation allows attachment of land or homes on mere suspicion, freezing title deeds without prior trial. - Gold seizure: Citizens must sell gold above undefined thresholds to the State at fixed prices. - Privacy erosion: Regulation 25(5) compels disclosure of passwords, PINs, and private codes, violating personal security and freedom. Contextual Risks These measures cannot be viewed in isolation. In light of ongoing parliamentary debates on Section 25 and Section 235, the Draft Regulations appear to be a backdoor erosion of property rights. Call to Action - Withdraw or amend the Draft Regulations to align with constitutional protections. - Define thresholds transparently before granting the State such expansive powers. - Ensure that ownership remains with individuals, not the State. Declaration of Non-Consent I do not consent to the reclassification of my private property as "state-managed capital." Any attempt to attach, compel sale, or demand private codes will be treated as unlawful interference with my inherent rights. | |
2026-07-06 20:27:41 +02:00 | robert-louis-isak | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | ? Submission fof Subject: Comment on Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, 2026 Introduction I submit this comment as an emancipated human being, having previously issued notice to government and received acquiescence acknowledgment from President Ramaphosa. My engagement here is part of my civil responsibility to safeguard the rights and freedoms of South Africans. Principle-Based Objection The Draft Regulations redefine "capital" as anything with monetary value, including homes, gold, and intellectual property. This reclassification risks undermining the constitutional guarantee of property rights under Section 25. Ownership is a cornerstone of human dignity and freedom, and any attempt to convert private assets into "state-managed capital" is unacceptable. Specific Concerns - Property attachment: Regulation allows attachment of land or homes on mere suspicion, freezing title deeds without prior trial. - Gold seizure: Citizens must sell gold above undefined thresholds to the State at fixed prices. - Privacy erosion: Regulation 25(5) compels disclosure of passwords, PINs, and private codes, violating personal security and freedom. Contextual Risks These measures cannot be viewed in isolation. In light of ongoing parliamentary debates on Section 25 and Section 235, the Draft Regulations appear to be a backdoor erosion of property rights. Call to Action - Withdraw or amend the Draft Regulations to align with constitutional protections. - Define thresholds transparently before granting the State such expansive powers. - Ensure that ownership remains with individuals, not the State. Declaration of Non-Consent I do not consent to the reclassification of my private property as "state-managed capital." Any attempt to attach, compel sale, or demand private codes will be treated as unlawful interference with my inherent rights. | |
2026-07-06 14:07:07 +02:00 | MC | No I do not | All of the above | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | |
2026-07-05 06:50:43 +02:00 | Maryke | No I do not | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | ||
2026-07-02 19:55:17 +02:00 | Mary | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | This impinges on the rights of individual citizens. Nothing honest will come out of this . | |
2026-07-02 15:35:27 +02:00 | Susanna | No I do not | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | ||
2026-07-02 15:33:40 +02:00 | Susanna | No I do not | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | ||
2026-07-02 15:32:11 +02:00 | Susanna | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-07-01 13:46:31 +02:00 | Ymke | No I do not | Property Security: Attachment of Land & Title Deed Noting | I strongly disagree and feel deeply uncomfortable with a state in general but our (corrupt) state in particular to have that kind of power over individuals and their 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”.