The high court judgment reset the legal definition of crypto when it held that cryptocurrency is both 'money' and 'capital'. South Africa now has conflicting high court authorities on whether exchange controls apply to crypto assets, a situation requiring appellate resolution.

On 1 June 2026, the Gauteng High Court (Wilson J) held in Mangundhla and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (No. 2022-029979) that Bitcoin "constitutes both money and capital" under the "Exchange Control Regulations of 1961, (Regulations)" and that transferring crypto assets to foreign exchange wallets amounts to the unlawful export of capital. The court dismissed the review application against forfeiture orders totalling about R6-million, with costs on scale C. The contrary decision in Standard Bank v SARB 2025 (5) SA 289 (GP) was dismissed as "clearly wrong".

The court defined "capital" as any financial asset capable of holding value or serving as a medium of exchange (para. 13). Applying this test, Bitcoin qualified because it can be exchanged for fiat currency, used directly to purchase goods and services, and serves as both a medium of exchange and a store of value. The court held that export occurs when the thing exported leaves the country and that crediting Bitcoin to wallets on foreign exchanges suffices (para 26). Regarding forfeiture, the court held that Bitcoin is money because the regulations defined "money" to include any bill of exchange or other negotiable instruments, and Bitcoin exhibits qualities sufficient...