Crypto assets face SA controls as Treasury drafts rules

South Africa to include crypto assets in capital flow management

south africa plans to amend regulations to include crypto assets in its capital flow management framework. The policy shift would extend oversight to crypto-related cross‑border flows and align digital asset movements with existing supervisory tools.

If implemented, the changes would sit alongside South Africa exchange control regulations that already govern traditional capital outflows. The objective is to close definitional gaps and ensure that crypto flows are visible within the same reporting architecture as other forms of capital.

Why it matters for South Africa exchange control regulations

Capital flow management hinges on visibility, approval mechanisms, and post‑trade monitoring. Incorporating crypto assets in capital flow management would help regulators identify, measure, and manage cross‑border exposures that currently fall outside legacy definitions.

The focal legal hook is Regulation 10(1)(c), which restricts the export of capital without approval. Bringing crypto within scope would clarify when a transfer is an “export of capital,” the approvals required, and which records institutions must maintain and report.

Institutional interest, including exchange‑traded products and tokenised exposures, depends on legal clarity. Industry participants have argued that certainty on onshore versus offshore classification would reduce compliance ambiguity and improve tax reporting for digital asset investments.

For investors, classifying assets as onshore or offshore would shape how holdings are custodied, the disclosures required, and how cross‑border movements are treated under exchange control. Clear rules could also support regulated vehicles, including ETFs, by resolving domicile and custody questions.

For banks and crypto exchanges operating on‑ and off‑ramps, inclusion under exchange control would likely formalise existing risk controls. Firms can expect more explicit record‑keeping, reporting cadences, and counterparty due‑diligence expectations tied to cross‑border transfers.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin (BTC) traded near $68,246 with high volatility around 9.88%. This context underscores why policymakers often prioritise risk‑sensitive guardrails when integrating novel assets into capital flow frameworks.

Regulation 10(1)(c) and the current legal position

High Court ruling: crypto not capital under existing rules

In May 2025, the High Court of South Africa held that, under current law, cryptocurrencies are not “currency” or “capital” for exchange control purposes and thus fall outside Regulation 10(1)(c). The court added that only a legislative update, not judicial interpretation, can expand the definition to include crypto.

“[A] regulatory framework addressing crypto‑currency is long overdue,” said Judge Mandlenkosi Motha in clarifying that legislative amendment is required to treat crypto as “capital” under the 1961 Exchange Control Regulations.

Amendment path: National Treasury, SARB FinSurv, and IFWG recommendations

The Intergovernmental FinTech Working Group (IFWG) recommended amending Regulation 10(4) so crypto assets are treated as “capital” for Regulation 10(1)(c). As of late 2024, amendments remained in progress, with National Treasury and the central bank’s Financial Surveillance Department identified as responsible for advancing the work.

Practically, this points to a formal legislative route: drafting amendments, coordinating across financial authorities, public consultation where applicable, and gazetting the final text before supervisory enforcement begins.

FAQ about South Africa exchange control regulations

When could amendments to Regulation 10(1)(c) realistically take effect, and what is the legislative process?

Timing depends on drafting, consultation, and gazetting by National Treasury with FinSurv coordination. No official effective date has been announced.

How would classifying crypto as onshore vs offshore change reporting, allowances, and tax for South African investors?

Onshore designation would align with domestic custody and reporting; offshore treatment frames cross‑border movements as capital flows. Tax and reporting outcomes depend on final legal text.