Mangundhla and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022/029979) [2026] ZAGPJHC 579 (1 June 2026) is a landmark judgement in which the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (“Court”) considered whether Bitcoin constitutes “capital” and “money” for purposes of the South African Exchange Control Regulations of 1961 (“Regulations”). The case stemmed from an investigation by the South African Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”) into the offshore transfer of approximately 1 680 Bitcoin, valued at just under R182 million, to cryptocurrency wallets which is held on foreign cryptocurrency exchanges. The Reserve Bank took the view that this conduct amounted to the exportation of the Bitcoin and their rand value, in contravention of Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Regulations. The Regulations provide that no person shall “enter into any transaction whereby capital or any right to capital is directly or indirectly exported from the Republic” without permission from the National Treasury.
The applicants’ case rested on four principal grounds. First, they contended that cryptocurrency falls entirely outside the scope of the Regulations in that it constitutes neither “capital”, nor “currency”, nor a “security”, and that its transfer to a foreign-hosted wallet does not amount to a “payment”. Second, they argued that even if cryptocurrency could be characterised as “capital”, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the relevant Bitcoin had been “exported” within the meaning of the Regulations. Third, the applicants alleged that, even if the relevant transactions did result in exportation of cryptocurrency in a manner contrary to the Regulations, the investigation that drew that conclusion was procedurally unfair, and the outcome of the investigation ought to be set aside on that ground alone. Fourth, and in the alternative, they submitted that Bitcoin is neither “money” nor “goods” for purposes of Regulations 22A and 22B and therefore could not lawfully be subjected to a forfeiture order.
The Court held that cryptocurrency, specifically Bitcoin, falls within the meaning of both “money” and “capital” for purposes of the Regulations. It reasoned that Bitcoin constitutes capital as a financial asset which is capable of holding value, and money due to it being able to directly purchase goods and can be converted to fiat currency. The Court further found that the relevant capital had been “exported” as contemplated in the Regulations, on the basis that the Bitcoin was transferred to wallets held on foreign cryptocurrency exchanges, thereby triggering the requirement for the necessary permissions to be obtained from National Treasury. Lastly, the Court rejected the applicants’ allegations of procedural unfairness and upheld the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets.
This case marks an important development in South African exchange control law by integrating cryptocurrency into its regulatory framework. By confirming that Bitcoin qualifies as both “money” and “capital” the Court closed a perceived loophole that previously could have allowed for the movement of Bitcoin across borders without the necessary permissions. This signals a stronger regulatory approach to cross-border cryptocurrency transactions and underscores the need to ensure that such transactions are structured in compliance with South African law.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
