南非的高等法院規則加密貨幣不受交換控制法規的約束

上週，南非高等法院裁定，加密貨幣不受該國的交換控制法規的約束。

Last week, South Africa’s High Court ruled that cryptocurrencies are not subject to the country’s exchange control regulations.

上週，南非高等法院裁定，加密貨幣不受該國的交換控制法規的約束。

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has long warned that individuals in emerging markets often use crypto to bypass capital controls due to its peer-to-peer transferability. The IMF fears this could destabilize such economies through capital flight.

國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）長期以來一直警告說，新興市場中的個人經常使用加密貨幣來繞過資本控制，因為其點對點轉移性。國際貨幣基金組織擔心這可能會通過資本飛行破壞這種經濟體的穩定。

However, in this case, the court determined that under South African law, cryptocurrency does not meet the legal definitions of either “money” or “capital.”

但是，在這種情況下，法院裁定，根據南非法律，加密貨幣不符合“金錢”或“資本”的法律定義。

The case arose when Standard Bank sued the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and others after the central bank seized R16.4 million (approximately $1 million) from a Standard Bank account. The account belonged to Leo Cash and Carry, a client that had become insolvent. Standard Bank held a lien over the funds, but SARB claimed forfeiture because Leo Cash and Carry had purchased R556 million ($37 million) in Bitcoin and transferred it offshore.

當標準銀行起訴南非儲備銀行（SARB）和其他銀行在中央銀行從標準銀行帳戶中奪取1640萬蘭特（約100萬美元）之後，該案發生了。該帳戶屬於已無力償債的客戶Leo Cash and Carry。標準銀行對這筆資金持有留置權，但SARB聲稱沒收了，因為Leo Cash和Carry購買了5.56億蘭特（3700萬美元）的比特幣，並將其轉讓了海上。

Standard Bank, a secured creditor of LLC, argued, amongst other things, that the forfeiture was not justified as cryptocurrency should not be regarded as a form of capital for the purposes of the exchange control regime.

標準銀行是有限責任公司的有擔保債權人，除其他外，沒有被沒收是合理的，因為就交換控制制度而言，不應將加密貨幣視為一種資本形式。

SARB lost the case. The judge ruled that the country’s exchange control laws must be interpreted narrowly due to the central bank’s broad powers of forfeiture.

SARB丟失了此案。法官裁定，由於中央銀行的廣泛沒收權，必須狹義地解釋該國的交換控制法。

There were two clauses under which cryptocurrency could potentially fall:

有兩個條款可能會降低加密貨幣：

“The answer lies in one’s interpretation of the word ‘currency’,” the judge wrote.

法官寫道：“答案在於對'貨幣'一詞的解釋。”

“The term ‘currency’ in Regulation 10(1)(c) must be construed in accordance with the common usage of language. In this regard, I do not accept the submission by the third respondent’s counsel that the word ‘currency’ in Regulation 10(1)(c) should be given an exceptionally wide meaning.”

“必鬚根據語言的共同用法來解釋第10（1）（c）條中的'貨幣'一詞。在這方面，我不接受第三被告律師的提交，即第10（1）（c）條中的“貨幣”一詞應具有異常廣泛的含義。”

The judge pointed out that the валютный рынок is used in a technical sense in the Regulations and in accordance with common usage of language, it is clear that cryptocurrency is not валютный рынок.

法官指出，在法規中使用的是技術意義上的使用，並且按照語言的常見使用，很明顯，加密貨幣不是線體。

“The uncontroverted evidence of the third respondent’s own witness, Mr Bekithemba Babili, in the third parties’ case is that cryptocurrency is not money. It is a type of property, in this instance, a choses in action, which is recognised by law and which can be bought, sold and traded like any other form of property.”

“在第三方的情況下，第三被告自己的證人貝基特姆巴·比比利先生的無爭議的證據是，加密貨幣不是金錢。在這種情況下，這是一種財產，在這種情況下，在法律上選擇了一種選擇，可以被法律認可，並且可以像其他任何房地產一樣被購買和交易。”

There was also no evidence that any State had granted cryptocurrency legal tender status, which was a requirement for it to be classified as валютный рынок, the judge added.

法官補充說，也沒有證據表明任何國家都授予了加密貨幣法律招標身份，這是要求將其歸類為線Chinый衝。

The court ultimately found that cryptocurrencies do not fall within the definitions of “money” or “capital” as contemplated in the Regulations.

法院最終發現，該法規中所述的加密貨幣不屬於“貨幣”或“資本”的定義。

In this regard, Judge Motha, J held as follows:

在這方面，Motha法官，J法官認為如下：

“To me, on any construction, much less on a restrictive interpretation, cryptocurrency falls outside the ambit of capital under Reg 10(1)(c). I agree with the counsel for the applicant that a regulatory framework addressing cryptocurrency is long overdue. In the same way that intellectual property rights had a niche carved for them in Excon, cryptocurrency needs some legislative attention.”

As for the clause concerning capital, previous South African legal cases had debated whether intellectual property qualified as capital. The courts had ruled it did not – until lawmakers later amended the legislation to explicitly include it.

至於有關資本的條款，以前的南非法律案件曾辯論過知識產權是否符合資本資格。法院裁定它沒有 - 直到立法者後來修改了立法，以明確包括在內。

The judge concluded that cryptocurrency similarly does not currently fall under the legal definition of capital, and that any desire to include it must be addressed through legislative change.

法官得出的結論是，加密貨幣目前同樣不屬於資本的法律定義，並且必須通過立法變更來解決任何納入資本的願望。

“The implication of this amendment is that if the legislature had intended to include any asset other than physical assets in the definition of ‘capital’ the legislature would have done so expressly. Since 1990 the legislature has had the opportunity to amend the Regulation to specifically include cryptocurrency if it had wished to do so. However, to date the legislature has not done so despite cryptocurrency existing for over 15 years – one cannot say SARB has been caught napping.”

“The implication of this amendment is that if the legislature had intended to include any asset other than physical assets in the definition of 'capital' the legislature would have done so expressly. Since 1990 the legislature has had the opportunity to amend the Regulation to specifically include cryptocurrency if it had wished to do so. However, to date the legislature has not done so despite cryptocurrency existing for over 15 years – one cannot say SARB has been caught napping.”

The SARB’s forfeiture of the relevant funds was set aside.

SARB沒收相關資金了。

The ruling sends a clear signal to central banks: exchange control laws must be updated if they are to cover cryptocurrencies.

該裁決向中央銀行發出了明確的信號：如果要涵蓋加密貨幣，則必須更新交換控制法。

In the meantime, the judgment is expected to trigger increased cryptocurrency activity in South Africa until new legislation is enacted. Since South Africa regulates local crypto exchanges, this could create a short-term premium on Bitcoin prices domestically if demand surges.

同時，預計該判決將觸發南非的加密貨幣活動的增加，直到製定新的立法為止。由於南非對當地加密交易所進行了監管，因此，如果需求激增，這可能會在國內對比特幣價格產生短期保費。

Ironically, while Standard Bank won the case, the victory could come at a cost. A potential rush to buy crypto and move money offshore may significantly erode bank deposits – potentially outweighing the R16.4 million the bank managed to recover.

具有諷刺意味的是，儘管標準銀行贏得了案件，但勝利可能會以付出代價。潛在的急於購買加密貨幣並將貨幣移出近海可能會大大侵蝕銀行存款，這可能超過了銀行設法恢復的1640萬蘭特。