For years, one question in South Africa’s cryptocurrency debate has been deceptively simple: if bitcoin is bought in South Africa and moved to a wallet linked to an offshore custodian, has capital left the country? A new high court ruling brings that question into focus – not as a debate about what bitcoin is, but about what it can be used to do.
The ruling by Judge Stuart David James Wilson, issued on 1 June 2026, dealt with whether bitcoin constitutes “money” or “capital” for purposes related to the existing exchange control regime. The court concluded that it is both, at least in that context.
The judgment records that just under 1 680 bitcoin, purchased in the South African market and worth just under R182-million, were transferred to wallets accessible through cryptocurrency exchanges registered outside South Africa. The fundamental question was whether national treasury permission was required to externalise this “capital”.
The case was not about whether crypto is good or bad, whether exchange controls should exist or the forfeiture order itself. The important issue is the court’s reasoning: bitcoin was treated as a financial asset capable of holding value and being used as a medium of exchange. As such, according to the latest ruling, it falls within the concept of “capital” under the exchange control regulations.
The court was not persuaded that bitcoin’s technological features place it outside the law. The argument that bitcoin is “just code on a digital ledger”, globally accessible and not legal tender, did not carry the day. The court focused less on novelty and more on real-world consequences. If rand value can be converted into bitcoin and placed beyond exchange control oversight, excluding bitcoin from “capital” would fundamentally undermine the regime.
Practical
This is where the judgment departs from the earlier Standard Bank vs Sarb (2025) decision, in which the court reached the opposite conclusion. Judge Wilson expressly disagreed, finding that the earlier judgment placed too much emphasis on cryptocurrency’s intangible and technological character, and not enough on how it functions economically. On the court’s reasoning, the fact that bitcoin is technologically novel does not, by itself, place it outside rules aimed at controlling the movement of financial value. If it can store value and be used to move that value beyond South Africa’s regulatory reach, it may fall within those rules.
Read: Treasury’s crypto crackdown is a betrayal of Mandela’s promise
The “export” point is equally important. A common response is that bitcoin is not physically located anywhere, and that a wallet can be accessed from South Africa as easily as from another country. That may be a valid starting point, but the court’s focus was more practical: where was the value held, who had legal custody, rights or control and when did it move beyond South African regulatory oversight?
On the facts, the bitcoin was purchased through accounts with a South African crypto asset service provider and transferred to wallets accessible through offshore cryptocurrency exchanges. The court therefore treated this as value moving from within South Africa’s regulatory perimeter to beyond the Reserve Bank’s jurisdiction.
This also explains why the proposed capital flow management (CFM) regulations appear to move towards a more explicit framework for crypto assets, focusing on control, transfer, self-custody and whether value is placed beyond South Africa’s regulatory perimeter. Once credited to wallets on foreign exchanges, the court held that the bitcoin had been exported.
The ruling brings the issue into sharper focus, but it does not settle it. This remains a technical area of law, particularly because two high court judgments have now reached different conclusions on whether cryptocurrency can constitute “money” or “capital” for exchange control purposes. It gives the industry an important indication of how the issue may be approached, but not a final answer.
It also raises questions beyond bitcoin, such as the implications for stablecoins or other blockchain-based digital assets that represent a claim against underlying assets. If a rand-backed stablecoin is transferred to an offshore platform, a decentralised finance protocol or even into self-custody, has value been externalised even if the reserves remain in South Africa?
The question matters because the CFM regulations refer not only to capital, but also to “a right to capital”. The movement of the token may, therefore, potentially amount to the movement of “a right to capital” in relation to assets situated in South Africa.
So, where does this leave us? While many have questioned whether exchange controls remain fit for purpose in a borderless digital economy, this ruling does not end that debate – it changes its centre of gravity. The question is no longer only whether crypto assets are technologically different or whether they fit neatly into older legal concepts, but whether their use results in value, control or “a right to capital” moving beyond South Africa’s regulatory reach.
Read: Eskom developing bitcoin mining plan but needs Nersa’s nod
That is precisely the direction in which the proposed CFM regulations appear to be moving. Yet difficult questions remain: which judicial view now carries the day, and could this reasoning affect historic transactions where the underlying facts have always existed? The unresolved question for the industry is therefore not simply what crypto is, but when its movement becomes the movement of capital.
- The author, Wiehann Olivier, is partner and global co-head of digital assets at Forvis Mazars
- Subscribe to TechCentral’s daily newsletter
- Get breaking news alerts on WhatsApp
