Campaign Archives

This page lists all previous advocacy campaigns run by the BitcoinZAR Advocacy Group. Each entry records the regulatory issue we addressed, the key dates, community participation, and the outcome of our coordinated public comment efforts. Our mission remains the same: to protect and promote sensible, Bitcoin-friendly policies in South Africa by mobilising the local community to submit high-quality, constructive feedback on draft laws and regulations that affect Bitcoin adoption, self-custody, and financial freedom.

Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations 2026

Submission End Date

30 September 2026

Total Submissions via BitcoinZAR AG

1054

Details

The draft Crypto Assets Manual for cross-border activities, published jointly by National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank on 3 August 2026, sets out how the draft Capital Flow Management Regulations 2026 (which are fundamentally flawed and has not been finalised) would be applied to crypto. It defines when a crypto move counts as a cross-border flow (mainly when assets leave a domestic Authorised Crypto Asset Service Provider for an offshore CASP or a non-custodial wallet, or the reverse), makes those flows reportable to the Financial Surveillance Department, and limits outbound externalisation at this stage to individuals using their single discretionary or foreign capital allowances via Authorised CASPs. It also covers the process to become an Authorised CASP, permissions and conditions on cross-border crypto activity, and related admin and reporting duties, while treating purely domestic buys, sells, and transfers between local Authorised CASPs as non-reportable. Comments close 30 September 2026.

Why This Campaign Mattered

A self-custody wallet is effectively treated as “offshore”.

Sending crypto from a local CASP to your own hardware wallet is classified as an export of capital, even though ownership has not changed and a non-custodial wallet has no objective geographical location. This is the biggest conceptual departure from CEMAD, which normally looks at residency, counterparty and economic purpose.

Self-custody is asymmetrical.

Outward transfers to a non-custodial wallet are permitted under the SDA/FCA, but transferring crypto back from a non-custodial wallet to a South African CASP is expressly non-permissible. Repatriation must apparently originate from an offshore custodial CASP. This could force customers to route self-custodied assets through a foreign exchange merely to return them to South Africa.

South African companies are entirely excluded from cross-border crypto.

Resident entities may trade locally but cannot make any crypto transaction classified as an import or export of capital. That is far more restrictive than CEMAD, under which companies can conduct numerous approved foreign investments, imports, exports, loans and other cross-border transactions.

CMA residents are apparently prohibited from using Authorised CASPs at all.

The Manual says CASPs may not transact with residents of Lesotho, Namibia or eSwatini, and the tables classify even their domestic purchases and sales as non-permissible. This is difficult to reconcile with the generally integrated treatment of Rand transactions within the Common Monetary Area.

Authorised CASP licensing requirements.

An Authorised CASP must hold ring-fenced unimpaired capital equal to the higher of R5 million or 15% of average positive gross income, which cannot be withdrawn without FinSurv approval. FinSurv must also approve changes to directors, beneficial ownership, business models, premises and even the launching or closing of an electronic platform.

Private CASPs are encouraged to use search powers.

The Manual says CASPs may call for information and search premises to inspect books or documents, and should “fully avail” themselves of those powers. Delegating intrusive enforcement powers to private crypto businesses is highly unusual and does not have an obvious CEMAD equivalent.

Outcome

There has been no official response to date.

Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations 2026

Submission End Date

30 June 2026

Total Submissions via BitcoinZAR AG

4103

Details

National Treasury published the draft on 17 April 2026. You can read the full draft regulations here. It brings all crypto-assets, including Bitcoin, into the capital flow management framework. This will affect cross-border Bitcoin transfers, self-custody moves, and everyday use by South African Bitcoiners.

Why This Campaign Mattered

The TL;DR
  1. All Bitcoin holdings must be declared to Treasury within 30 days. No sale or transfer afterwards without written permission. (Reg 10)
  2. Peer-to-peer Bitcoin trading is out. Only Treasury-authorised CASPs may buy, sell, borrow, or lend BTC. Selling sats to a friend breaches the reg. (Reg 3)
  3. Shops can’t accept Bitcoin directly. Merchant acceptance is a sale between non-CASPs and must route through an authorised CASP. (Reg 3)
  4. Bitcoin is explicitly not “currency”. It’s classified as “capital”, so spending BTC triggers capital movement rules. (Reg 1).
  5. Circular economies don’t fit. Every BTC transfer between non-CASPs is a restricted capital transaction. (Reg 3)
  6. Cross-border Bitcoin sends blocked. Any send outside SA needs Treasury permission. A seed phrase in your head still counts as being “in control”. (Reg 4)
  7. Treasury can demand your private keys. On forfeiture you must hand over passwords, PINs, and codes. Refusal is a criminal offence. (Reg 25(5))
  8. Pre-forfeiture freezes on suspicion. Treasury can attach or seize crypto on reasonable suspicion, no court order. Forced sale to Treasury at market rand value also applies. (Reg 8, 24)
  9. Expanded search powers at ports of entry and exit. Written crypto declaration mandatory on entry. Officers can search you, your luggage, mail, and parcels, and seize on suspicion. (Reg 4, 5)
  10. Penalties: R1m or the crypto’s value, whichever is greater, plus up to 5 years jail. (Reg 29)

The official media statement promises a “positive bias” with fewer pre-approvals and a focus only on “high-impact and high-risk” cross-border transactions. Yet the actual draft uses broad, catch-all language without defining key terms like thresholds, limits, or risk categories. This makes it impossible for citizens to understand what rules will actually apply to their Bitcoin use.

Instead of targeting genuine high-risk activity, the draft applies a blunt, permission-based system to all crypto-assets — treating personal self-custody Bitcoin transfers the same as large institutional flows. This directly undermines the modern, risk-based framework that was promised in the 2026 Budget.

Thousands of South Africans rely on Bitcoin to hedge against rand volatility, send cheaper remittances, and participate in the global economy. Adding unclear authorisation hurdles will increase costs, drive legitimate activity underground or offshore, and reduce Bitcoin’s usefulness at a time when many need it most.

The broad powers of attachment, blocking, and forfeiture engage sections 22 (freedom of trade), 25 (property rights), and 33 (just administrative action) of the Constitution. Any limitation of fundamental rights must be reasonable, proportionate, and clearly defined. The current draft falls short of this legal standard by relying on sweeping, undefined discretions.

Outcome

There has been no official response to date.