\u201cI respectfully so conclude,\u201d he said, explaining that Motha had fixated on the technology behind cryptocurrency, rather than the purposes it was used for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Reserve Bank said Mangundhla used Luno accounts to buy just under 1,680 Bitcoin in South Africa between January 2018 and March 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It alleged that Mangundhla used his own Luno account, as well as that of an associate, to circumvent the platform\u2019s trade limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bitcoin was worth just under R182 million and was transferred to wallets accessible through cryptocurrency exchanges registered outside South Africa, according to the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank declared just under R6 million in Bitcoin assets and bank balances forfeit to the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mangundhla argued that cryptocurrency was not money, capital, currency, or a security under the Exchange Control Regulations, and that foreign wallet transfers were not payments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson rejected these arguments, finding that Bitcoin was a financial asset capable of holding value and being used as a medium of exchange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court said treating Bitcoin as outside exchange control would undermine capital controls by allowing money to leave South Africa through cryptocurrency transfers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bitcoin as capital<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Mandlenkosi-Percival-Motha.jpg\")
Mandlenkosi Percival Motha, Judge to the Gauteng division of the High Court<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nWilson said Bitcoin\u2019s digital and intangible characteristics did not matter where it allowed capital to move beyond South African borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judgment said Exchange Control Regulation 10(1)(c) prohibited transactions that directly or indirectly export capital from South Africa without Treasury permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mangundhla had admitted to performing the transactions and that he did not have Treasury permission, leaving the court to decide whether Bitcoin was capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said capital under the regulations was not limited to fiat currency, but included financial assets that can hold value or function as exchange media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said Bitcoin met that test because it can be exchanged for fiat currency and carries value through the blockchain system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt follows from the undisputed facts that the capital at issue in this case was \u2018exported\u2019 within the meaning of Regulation 10 (1),\u201d Wilson ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cExport takes place when the thing exported leaves the country. The mere fact that the Bitcoin was credited to cryptocurrency wallets on foreign exchanges is enough to conclude that capital was exported.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Counsel for Mangundhla argued that export could not have taken place unless the holders of those wallets could be identified as resident in a foreign jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, if it could be established that the Bitcoin was converted to foreign currency in a foreign jurisdiction, it could be considered exported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI do not agree. Plainly, once the Bitcoin was placed beyond the Reserve Bank\u2019s jurisdiction, it was exported,\u201d Wilson stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Forfeiture upheld<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Luno-4-1200x675.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMangundhla also argued that Bitcoin in his and his associate\u2019s Luno wallets could not be forfeited because the regulations only allowed forfeiture of goods or money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe force of this contention depends in large part in my accepting that Bitcoin is something other than I have found it to be,\u201d Wilson ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said that \u201cmoney\u201d under the Regulations was defined to include \u201cany bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe qualities I have attributed to Bitcoin are plainly sufficient to bring it within the definition of a \u2018negotiable instrument,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat is, it is no more than a right to be credited a specified sum of Bitcoin, which is itself exchangeable for fiat currency and other things of value.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said even if he were wrong, Bitcoin\u2019s general characteristics bring it well within any sensible conception of money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt can be converted into fiat currency. It can also be used directly to purchase goods and services from merchants who accept it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. In my view, Bitcoin is clearly money. The Bitcoin was correctly subject to forfeiture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said Bitcoin\u2019s digital and intangible characteristics did not matter where it allowed capital to move beyond South African borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judgment said Exchange Control Regulation 10(1)(c) prohibited transactions that directly or indirectly export capital from South Africa without Treasury permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mangundhla had admitted to performing the transactions and that he did not have Treasury permission, leaving the court to decide whether Bitcoin was capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said capital under the regulations was not limited to fiat currency, but included financial assets that can hold value or function as exchange media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said Bitcoin met that test because it can be exchanged for fiat currency and carries value through the blockchain system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt follows from the undisputed facts that the capital at issue in this case was \u2018exported\u2019 within the meaning of Regulation 10 (1),\u201d Wilson ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cExport takes place when the thing exported leaves the country. The mere fact that the Bitcoin was credited to cryptocurrency wallets on foreign exchanges is enough to conclude that capital was exported.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Counsel for Mangundhla argued that export could not have taken place unless the holders of those wallets could be identified as resident in a foreign jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, if it could be established that the Bitcoin was converted to foreign currency in a foreign jurisdiction, it could be considered exported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI do not agree. Plainly, once the Bitcoin was placed beyond the Reserve Bank\u2019s jurisdiction, it was exported,\u201d Wilson stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Forfeiture upheld<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMangundhla also argued that Bitcoin in his and his associate\u2019s Luno wallets could not be forfeited because the regulations only allowed forfeiture of goods or money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe force of this contention depends in large part in my accepting that Bitcoin is something other than I have found it to be,\u201d Wilson ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said that \u201cmoney\u201d under the Regulations was defined to include \u201cany bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe qualities I have attributed to Bitcoin are plainly sufficient to bring it within the definition of a \u2018negotiable instrument,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat is, it is no more than a right to be credited a specified sum of Bitcoin, which is itself exchangeable for fiat currency and other things of value.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said even if he were wrong, Bitcoin\u2019s general characteristics bring it well within any sensible conception of money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt can be converted into fiat currency. It can also be used directly to purchase goods and services from merchants who accept it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. In my view, Bitcoin is clearly money. The Bitcoin was correctly subject to forfeiture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nMangundhla also argued that Bitcoin in his and his associate\u2019s Luno wallets could not be forfeited because the regulations only allowed forfeiture of goods or money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe force of this contention depends in large part in my accepting that Bitcoin is something other than I have found it to be,\u201d Wilson ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said that \u201cmoney\u201d under the Regulations was defined to include \u201cany bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe qualities I have attributed to Bitcoin are plainly sufficient to bring it within the definition of a \u2018negotiable instrument,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat is, it is no more than a right to be credited a specified sum of Bitcoin, which is itself exchangeable for fiat currency and other things of value.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wilson said even if he were wrong, Bitcoin\u2019s general characteristics bring it well within any sensible conception of money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt can be converted into fiat currency. It can also be used directly to purchase goods and services from merchants who accept it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. In my view, Bitcoin is clearly money. The Bitcoin was correctly subject to forfeiture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n