CRYPTO
BY NATALIE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS
For years, South Africans traded and transferred crypto assets while their treatment under exchange-control law remained unclear. Two conflicting judgments and a proposed regulatory framework have brought that uncertainty into focus.
South Africa has one of Africa’ s most active cryptocurrency markets, accompanied by fraud and regulatory uncertainty. Two High Court judgments have reached opposing conclusions about whether cryptocurrency fails under existing exchange controls, while proposed regulations would place crypto assets within the system.
THE STANDARD BANK DECISION In 2025, Motha J in the Gauteng Division considered whether cryptocurrency constitutes“ money” or“ capital” under the Exchange Control Regulations, 1961. His conclusion was that it is neither.
The court held that cryptocurrency is not legal tender, is not issued by a central bank, and exists as code on a digital ledger. Given the Regulations’ punitive forfeiture powers, Motha J found that they should be interpreted restrictively. The decision suggested that cross-border crypto transactions would not require Reserve Bank permission.
Standard Bank v South African Reserve Bank 2025( 5) SA 289( GP).
THE WILSON JUDGMENT In June 2026, Wilson J in the Gauteng Division reached the opposite conclusion, declaring the Standard Bank decision“ clearly wrong”.
The case concerned Mr Mangundhla, who transferred approximately 1 680 Bitcoin, then worth almost R182 million, to offshore wallets between January 2018 and March 2020 without Treasury permission.
Wilson J held that cryptocurrency is a financial capital asset because Bitcoin can be exchanged for conventional currency, held as an investment, and accepted as payment. Excluding it from exchange controls, he reasoned, would allow anyone to convert rand into cryptocurrency and transfer it offshore, undermining the Regulations.
The court also found that Bitcoin fell within the broad definition of money and upheld the Reserve Bank’ s forfeiture decision. South Africa therefore has conflicting High Court decisions requiring resolution by a higher court.
Mangundhla and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others( 2022 / 029979) [ 2026 ] ZAGPJHC 579.
86 INBOUND SA / SEPTEMBER 2026