Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | |
2026-09-10 12:19:37 +02:00 | Pieter | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | I’m concerned that these proposed regulations give the state far too much control over people’s money, property and crypto assets. Everyone agrees that money laundering and illegal financial activity must be dealt with, but the rules should not make ordinary law-abiding people feel as though they need permission to manage assets they legally own. The definition of “capital” is very broad and could include far more than people expect, including crypto assets, certain property rights and intellectual property. Important limits may also be decided later, which makes it difficult for the public to understand exactly who could be affected and when. It is also worrying that money or property could be attached based on suspicion, before anyone has been found guilty of an offence. There should be proper court oversight, reasonable time limits and a clear way for people to challenge decisions. The requirement to hand over passwords, PINs and private keys is another major concern. So are the proposed powers to inspect electronic devices at the border. These measures could seriously affect privacy and personal rights. Forcing people to sell crypto assets or gold, even at market value, could discourage investment and innovation. The penalties also need to be fair, especially where someone makes an honest mistake in a complicated system. |
2026-09-10 11:16:32 +02:00 | Gerhard | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | I oppose the proposed regulations because they may undermine the protections afforded by Section 25 of the Constitution. The draft appears to grant the State extensive powers over privately owned assets that are classified as capital, including cryptocurrency. Requiring citizens to declare, surrender control of, or potentially dispose of lawfully acquired assets creates a risk of indirect expropriation without appropriate constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, or guaranteed compensation. Property rights are a cornerstone of economic freedom and investment confidence. Any regulation aimed at combating illicit financial flows should be narrowly tailored to address criminal activity without granting broad powers that could interfere with legitimate private ownership of assets. |
2026-09-10 08:23:32 +02:00 | Lorraine | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | Again overreach of the state. Privacy, etc. |
2026-09-06 08:19:28 +02:00 | Aaron | No I do not | All of the above | Section 25 Rights: State Acquisition of Capital | |
2026-09-04 10:01:19 +02:00 | Graham | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | This is way more than being about Crypto. This is about everything a person owns that has any monetary value. That includes fridges; cars; homes; investments.... everything. A "threshold yet to be determined" is similar to handing someone a blank cheque. Seizing a smartphone or computer on "reasonable grounds" is outrageous. Who determines what is reasonable? A customs clerk? A trainee police officer? How is "reasonableness" applied and by whom? Handing over PINS and access data is the same as letting anyone into your bank account and stock portfolio and information can be downloaded by the "authorities" which information, such as all emails, could be used against a person despite the information having nothing to do with an alleged "financial error or indiscretion " which brought about the "seizure". What about this fiasco in relation to foreign investment? If a foreign company enters South Africa then they too are subject to these regulations and can have their assets seized or confiscated and their intellectual property taken over or their patents and trademarks "lost", not to mention proprietary information and technology. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS ABOUT TO BITE AND SOUTH AFRICA IS AT RISK OF HAVING ITS ECONOMY SHRINK EVEN FURTHER. This proposal is as invasive as air.... it is everywhere and covers everything and IS BORDERING ON TOTALITARIANISM initiated and managed by people or entities that appear to be beyond regulation or challenge. If I go over the border to Maputo for a business meeting, my car has value and based on some persons "reasonable assumption" that I may be selling my car in Maputo, my assets can be seized and all my information and private communications downloaded and penetrated while my PIN is used to drain my bank account and transfer stocks. This is completely nuts. OUR RIGHTS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY BEING ERODED AND SOON WE WILL ALL BE PUPPETS AND VICTIMS ON ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ABUSE THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND THEY WILL BE ABUSED. |
2026-09-03 11:53:09 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | What is mine, paid for by me, from my own pocket ,after taxation, is mine,and no Govt elected by us, has any say over those moneys. and what it is legally spent on period |
2026-08-28 15:51:06 +02:00 | S | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | |
2026-08-28 08:11:42 +02:00 | Idah | No I do not | Privacy & Self-Incrimination: Surrender of Passwords/Private Keys | ||
2026-08-27 07:00:16 +02:00 | Mikael | No I do not | Other | ||
2026-08-27 06:37:59 +02:00 | Carina | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | Discrimination against partially black owned businesses who have followed B-BBEE guidelines for more than 20 years. |
2026-08-26 07:30:09 +02:00 | Luvuyo | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | This whole thing is deeply troubling and seems like its based on these new European government/legal over-reaches. Privacy is sacred and no modernization or globalist legal trend should threaten that. |
2026-08-25 15:37:43 +02:00 | Bernice | No I do not | All of the above | Regulatory Overreach: Defining 'Anything of Value' as Capital | We cannot trust the people ''in charge'' and now they want us to hand over our Pin numbers and Passwords. you must be kidding me. When we wipe the sleep out of our eyes our bank accounts will have been cleaned out |
2026-08-23 22:37:47 +02:00 | Sharlene | No I do not | 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”.