Authored by Desiree Reddy and Ntokozo Ngubane.
On 3 August 2026, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) jointly published the draft Crypto Asset Manual for cross-border activities (Crypto Asset Manual) for public comment. Written comments may be submitted by 30 September 2026 to SARB FinSurvDocuments@resbank.co.za.
The Manual represents a significant step forward. It also raises questions that affected businesses may wish to address during the consultation period. Below, we identify key areas for consideration.
1. Is the Currency and Exchanges Act 1933 fit for purpose?
The framework derives its authority from the Currency and Exchanges Act, 1933 and regulations made under section 9(1). The Manual itself acknowledges that its permissions and conditions “have no statutory force” but “have the effect of law.”
The constitutionality of section 9(1)’s breadth was contested in SARB v Shuttleworth [2015] ZACC 17, where the Constitutional Court was divided. The minority held that the provision assigns plenary legislative power without an adequate statutory framework. For a novel asset class that did not exist in 1933, this remains a live debate.
Adding to the uncertainty, two High Court decisions have reached opposing conclusions. In Standard Bank v SARB 2025 (5) SA 289 (GP), Motha J held that cryptocurrency is neither “money” nor “capital” under the Exchange Control Regulations. In Mangundhla v SARB [2026] ZAGPJHC 579 (1 June 2026), Wilson J took the opposite view, noting that Bitcoin is both money and capital and describing the Standard Bank decision as “clearly wrong.” The matter will likely require resolution by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The draft Regulations seek to settle this legislatively by including crypto assets in the definition of “capital.” Stakeholders may nonetheless wish to comment on whether dedicated primary legislation would provide greater certainty.
2. Proportionality and rationale
Resident entities are prohibited from any cross-border crypto asset transaction classified as an import or export of capital. Individuals, by contrast, may transfer crypto offshore within the single discretionary allowance (R2 million per year) and foreign capital allowance (R10 million per year). No rationale is stated for this distinction.
Stakeholders may wish to consider whether a blanket prohibition is proportionate, whether certain entity categories (such as regulated financial institutions) could be accommodated, and whether a phased approach with review criteria would be more appropriate. The constitutional implications under sections 22 and 25 of the Constitution may also warrant attention.
3. The limits of a custodial-only framework
The Manual’s trigger-point concept depends on a custodial intermediary i.e. a regulated entity that holds clients’ crypto assets on their behalf, much like a bank holds deposits, as the reporting gatekeeper. This architecture does not reach activity that bypasses custodial infrastructure entirely.
Specifically, it does not address peer-to-peer transactions (direct transfers between individuals who each hold their own private keys in personal wallets, without any intermediary), DeFi protocols and decentralised exchanges (blockchain-based applications that allow users to swap, lend, or transfer crypto assets through automated smart contracts, without a centralised operator), or the broader enforceability gap where transactions occur entirely outside the domestic custodial ecosystem.
Stakeholders may wish to consider whether the Manual should address DeFi activity (consistent with international FATF guidance), whether technology-assisted compliance measures could supplement the custodial model, and whether classifying all inward transfers from non-custodial wallets as “non-permissible” may inadvertently penalise legitimate activity.
4. Transitional arrangements for existing operators
The Manual provides no transitional provisions for CASPs currently registered with the FIC and licensed by the FSCA that may already facilitate cross-border transactions. There is no grace period, no stated processing timeframe for FinSurv applications, and no clarity on the status of transactions entered into before commencement.
The timing difficulty is compounded by the prerequisite FSCA licensing process. An FSCA licence is required before a CASP can apply to FinSurv. As at 31 March 2026, the FSCA had 82 CASP licence applications under review, this number is likely to have grown since then. Many operators therefore cannot even begin the FinSurv process. The sequential path prescribed by the Manual i.e. FSCA licence and FIC registration before the submission of the FinSurv application, followed by a conditional approval, then a six-month compliance window — could leave operators unable to offer cross-border services for a considerable period.
Stakeholders may wish to propose defined transitional arrangements, processing timeframes, and clarity on pre-commencement transactions.
5. Incomplete technical specifications
The Manual states that the cross-border transaction reporting categories, the Business and Technical Specifications document, and the Operations Manual for the FinSurv Reporting System will all be published “once the policy framework has been formally adopted.” At the same time, applicants must demonstrate the ability to implement and certify the reporting system as a condition of appointment. Businesses are effectively being asked to invest in systems whose final specifications do not yet exist.
Stakeholders may wish to request early publication of draft specifications and a reasonable implementation period after finalisation.
6. No differentiation between types of Crypto Assets
The Manual does not distinguish between crypto asset types. Bitcoin, stablecoins, utility tokens, and non-fungible tokens are treated identically. A stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US dollar functions economically like a foreign currency transfer; a speculative meme token does not. International frameworks such as the EU’s MiCA Regulation differentiate by asset type. Stakeholders may wish to comment on whether a risk-based, tiered approach would better serve the framework’s objectives.
7. Regulatory overlap and coordination
The framework adds FinSurv authorisation on top of the existing FSCA licence (FAIS) and FIC registration. There are accordingly three parallel sets of obligations, several of which overlap (KYC/CDD, record-keeping, source-of-funds verification). Stakeholders may wish to consider whether compliance with FIC Act CDD obligations could be deemed to satisfy the Manual’s parallel requirements, and whether a coordinated or “single window” application process would reduce administrative burden.
8. Competitive position of domestic operators
The Manual governs domestic Authorised CASPs only. South African residents can still access offshore platforms directly. Domestic operators bear the full cost of compliance while offshore competitors face none of these obligations. Stakeholders may wish to consider whether measures to address this competitive imbalance, including possible cooperation with foreign regulators or equivalence recognition, should form part of the framework. How to participate Written comments must be submitted to SARB-FinSurvDocuments@resbank.co.za by close of business on 30 September 2026, in the format prescribed in Annexure A to the Manual (identifying the relevant section and paragraph, proposed amendments, and motivation). Both the Crypto Asset Manual and the draft Regulations remain subject to refinement, making this a genuine opportunity to shape the final framework.