Frequently Asked Questions
General Questions
What are the draft Capital Flow Management Regulations?
In April 2026, the South African National Treasury published draft regulations in the Government Gazette for public comment. These regulations propose sweeping new powers over how South Africans can hold, move, and manage their capital — including crypto assets, foreign currency, gold, securities, and intellectual property.
Does this only affect crypto holders?
No. While crypto assets receive the most aggressive treatment (including a self-custody ban), the regulations define "capital" as "anything with a monetary value, or which can be converted to money or disposed of for monetary consideration, including crypto assets." This covers foreign currency, gold (except wrought jewellery), securities, bonds, intellectual property, bearer instruments, and more. If you own anything of value other than immovable property, these regulations affect you.
I don't own any crypto. Why should I care?
Because the powers being proposed — warrantless search, forced disclosure of passwords, seizure of property without a court order — are not limited to crypto. They apply to all "capital" as defined by the Treasury. And even if they didn't, the precedent matters: once these powers exist, they will be expanded. Today it's crypto. Tomorrow it could be your savings account, your gold jewellery, or your share portfolio.
Are these regulations already law?
No. They are draft regulations currently open for public comment. This is our window to object. Once the comment period closes, the Treasury can finalise and gazette them, at which point they become enforceable law. That is why submitting public comments before the deadline is critical.
What is the deadline for public comments?
The Government Gazette states 18 May 2026. The gov.za website lists 10 June 2026. We recommend submitting by 18 May 2026 to be safe — use the earlier date.
Constitutional Questions
Do these regulations violate the Constitution?
We believe so, on at least two grounds:
- Section 25 (Property Rights): "No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property." Banning self-custody and allowing seizure without a warrant is arguably arbitrary deprivation.
- Section 14 (Privacy): "Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their person or home searched, their property searched, their possessions seized, or the privacy of their communications infringed." Warrantless search and forced key disclosure directly violate this right.
Can the government limit constitutional rights?
Yes, but only under strict conditions. Section 36 (the limitations clause) requires that any limitation must be "reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom." The limitation must be proportionate, and there must be no less restrictive means available. These regulations fail that test — they impose criminal penalties and warrantless powers without demonstrating that existing regulations (like FICA) are insufficient.
Is there going to be a legal challenge?
We are preparing for one. Constitutional litigation is expensive and complex, but if these regulations are gazetted in their current form, a legal challenge may be necessary. Your donations help fund this work.
Taking Action
How do I submit a public comment?
Email your submission to both of these addresses:
You can write your own submission or use our submission template as a starting point. Bitcoin ZAR also has a template you can adapt.
What should I say in my submission?
Focus on the constitutional issues: the right to property (Section 25), the right to privacy (Section 14), the lack of proportionality, the absence of evidence that existing regulations are insufficient, and the lack of a sunset clause or review mechanism. Personal testimony about how the regulations would affect you is also valuable. See our submission template for a detailed guide.
Does my submission actually matter?
Yes. Public comment periods are a legal requirement, and the Treasury must consider submissions received. A large volume of well-reasoned objections creates a public record that strengthens any future legal challenge. It also puts political pressure on decision-makers. Every submission counts.
How can I help beyond submitting a comment?
- Share this website — most South Africans don't know these regulations exist
- Talk to people — your friends, family, colleagues, MP
- Donate — legal challenges require funding. Donate here
- Join the coalition — if you represent an organisation, get in touch
About the AML Justification
Isn't AML regulation necessary?
South Africa already has comprehensive AML legislation under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA). Crypto asset service providers are already regulated, registered, and required to comply with customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, and all standard AML obligations. The question is not whether AML is necessary — it's whether these specific regulations are necessary, proportionate, and effective. The Treasury has provided no evidence that they are.
Why do you call it a "trope"?
Because the pattern is always the same: invoke AML/CFT as justification, propose sweeping new powers, provide no evidence that existing regulations are insufficient, include no sunset clause, include no impact assessment, and impose criminal penalties. After decades of this approach globally, the UN estimates less than 1% of illicit flows are intercepted, while compliance costs exceed $300 billion per year. The approach doesn't work, yet it is never reviewed — it only ratchets upward.
What would responsible regulation look like?
Responsible regulation would: (1) demonstrate with evidence that existing regulations are insufficient, (2) propose the least restrictive measures necessary, (3) include measurable objectives, (4) include a sunset clause and mandatory review period, (5) include a regulatory impact assessment, and (6) respect constitutional rights including due process and judicial oversight. These draft regulations do none of that.