South Africa’s High Court has defined Bitcoin as ‘money’ and ‘capital’, clearing the way for the country’s central bank to regulate the export of cryptocurrency
The Gauteng Division of the South African High Court has ruled that cryptocurrency, and specifically Bitcoin, is both money and capital, limiting the ability of South Africans to trade in the currency without official authorisation and departing from an earlier decision by the High Court
Giving his ruling on 1 June in Mangundhla & Dangaiso v South African Reserve Bank, Judge Stuart Wilson departed from what he called the “clearly wrong” 2025 decision by the Pretoria branch of the Gauteng Division in Standard Bank of South Africa v South African Reserve Bank, which had taken the opposite position
Whereas the Standard Bank ruling held that cryptocurrency’s inherently digital nature did not meet the definition of money, Judge Wilson instead focused on its purpose and use, writing: “To the extent that cryptocurrency is a financial asset that holds value and is used as a medium of exchange through which capital can be taken from within South Africa and placed beyond its borders, it does not matter that it may not be legal tender (in other words fiat currency), or that it exists as an entry on a digital ledger.”
Applicants (claimants) Square Mangundhla and Fungai Dangaiso brought the case against the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), its deputy governor and the minister of finance
Mangundhla traded on the online cryptocurrency platform Luno, using Dangaiso’s account when he reached the permissible limit for trades on his own account
While he made legal trades between 2015 and 2017, from 2018 to 2020, he transferred 1680 Bitcoin purchased in South Africa to wallets accessed through cryptocurrency exchanges abroad
SARB, the country’s central bank, categorised these transactions as the export of Bitcoin and their rand value in contravention of the Export Control Regulations, and ordered Mangundhla to forfeit ZAR 6 million (GBP 274,000)
Wilson determined that capital “means any financial asset that is capable of holding value or being used as a medium of exchange”, adding that “even if capital is given the relatively narrow definition of any financial asset that is capable of holding value or being used as a medium of exchange, cryptocurrency is certainly capital”
He rejected an argument that bitcoin’s intangible nature put it outside of this definition, saying: “It seems to me that Bitcoin is plainly capital in the sense that it is a financial asset that is capable of holding value and being used as a medium of exchange,” noting that Bitcoin can be used to purchase rand and is accepted by merchants as currency
Wilson further found that the Bitcoin had been exported once it was “placed beyond the Reserve Bank’s jurisdiction” and as such the regulations applied, rejecting a further defence under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)
The applicants had also argued that the forfeiture should not apply to the currency held in the Luno wallets on the grounds that the regulations only allow for the seizure of money, but Judge Wilson also rejected this argument, writing that “Bitcoin’s general characteristics bring it well within any sensible conception of money” on the basis that it can be converted into fiat currency and used to purchase goods and services.
“In my view, Bitcoin is clearly money. The Bitcoin was correctly subject to forfeiture,” he concluded
Mangundhla and Dangaiso were represented by Cape Town-based firm JM Attorneys, instructing advocates Eloize Eksteen SC and Anneline Roestorf
SARB was represented by law firm GMI Attorneys, instructing Werner Lüderitz SC, Ernst Kromhout and Katlego Moloisane
Crypto assets were regulated by South Africa by bringing them under the oversight of the Financial Sector Conduct Authority in 2022. That made it one of several African countries to legalise and regulate digital assets in the past few years, including Ghana, Nigeria, Central African Republic and Morocco
The Gauteng Division is the forum for an ongoing challenge to the South African Legal Sector Code, brought in April by three law firms who argue that its racial transformation objectives are unworkable
Last year, the court introduced mandatory mediation for civil disputes
