We Want Clear Rules for Cross-Border Crypto in South Africa

In April, National Treasury and the SARB published the draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, and we shared our initial concerns at the time. The comment deadline closed on 30 June. MoneyBadger made a formal submission and contributed to a joint industry submission, and several of our team submitted personally. We encourage the whole industry to keep engaging on policy matters like these.

Like the regulators, we want clear rules for cross-border Bitcoin and crypto transactions. Our concern is that the draft will not deliver them. It introduces a new category of CASP requiring Treasury permission for many common crypto operations, including activity that never crosses a border. Depending on unpublished thresholds, everyday crypto commerce and withdrawals to your own wallet could be caught.

Treasury's stated direction is fewer pre-approvals and reporting-led oversight. We ask that the final text match that promise, with an approach that gives the state more visibility into cross-border flows, not less:

• Recognise existing CASP regulation: FSCA-licensed, FIC-registered CASPs should be recognised under published criteria and timelines, rather than put through a second, undefined licensing process.

• Report, don't request: recognised CASPs should be able to process cross-border transactions by reporting them to the SARB. Only cross-border flows should be reportable. Domestic holdings and activity must stay outside the net.

• Publish thresholds and narrow the scope before the rules become enforceable. Nobody should face liability under an unpublished threshold.

• Recognise that self-custody ("unhosted") wallets are not inherently cross-border, and keep them outside the capital-flow net. Withdrawing to your own wallet is not, by itself, an export of capital.

• Treat different assets differently: domestically issued (Rand stablecoins), foreign-issued (Dollar stablecoins) and unissued tokens (Bitcoin) do not carry the same risks.

• Protect clients and compliant providers: blocking, forfeiture and sanctions need a clear link to a contravention, protection for client assets, due process, and a safe harbour for compliant CASPs.

• Stage the transition: deem existing licensed CASPs recognised during transition, with new duties commencing once reporting specifications are published.

A permission-heavy regime will not stop crypto flows. It will push them offshore, beyond South African oversight and with less protection for users. Regulated onshore providers are the state's best window into cross-border crypto, and good regulation strengthens that window without driving activity into the shadows. We welcome further engagement as the framework is finalised.

Read our full statement from April here.