南非的高等法院规则加密货币不受交换控制法规的约束

上周，南非高等法院裁定，加密货币不受该国的交换控制法规的约束。

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

上周，南非高等法院裁定，加密货币不受该国的交换控制法规的约束。

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.

国际货币基金组织（IMF）长期以来一直警告说，新兴市场中的个人经常使用加密货币来绕过资本控制，因为其点对点转移性。国际货币基金组织担心这可能会通过资本飞行破坏这种经济体的稳定。

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，在这种情况下，法院裁定，根据南非法律，加密货币不符合“金钱”或“资本”的法律定义。

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.

当标准银行起诉南非储备银行（SARB）和其他银行在中央银行从标准银行帐户中夺取1640万兰特（约100万美元）之后，该案发生了。该帐户属于已无力偿债的客户Leo Cash and Carry。标准银行对这笔资金持有留置权，但SARB声称没收了，因为Leo Cash和Carry购买了5.56亿兰特（3700万美元）的比特币，并将其转让了海上。

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.

标准银行是有限责任公司的有担保债权人，除其他外，没有被没收是合理的，因为就交换控制制度而言，不应将加密货币视为一种资本形式。

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丢失了此案。法官裁定，由于中央银行的广泛没收权，必须狭义地解释该国的交换控制法。

There were two clauses under which cryptocurrency could potentially fall:

有两个条款可能会降低加密货币：

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

法官写道：“答案在于对'货币'一词的解释。”

“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.”

“必须根据语言的共同用法来解释第10（1）（c）条中的'货币'一词。在这方面，我不接受第三被告律师的提交，即第10（1）（c）条中的“货币”一词应具有异常广泛的含义。”

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，在法规中使用的是技术意义上的使用，并且按照语言的常见使用，很明显，加密货币不是线体。

“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.”

“在第三方的情况下，第三被告自己的证人贝基特姆巴·比比利先生的无争议的证据是，加密货币不是金钱。在这种情况下，这是一种财产，在这种情况下，在法律上选择了一种选择，可以被法律认可，并且可以像其他任何房地产一样被购买和交易。”

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.

法官补充说，也没有证据表明任何国家都授予了加密货币法律招标身份，这是要求将其归类为线Chinый冲。

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

法院最终发现，该法规中所述的加密货币不属于“货币”或“资本”的定义。

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

在这方面，Motha法官，J法官认为如下：

“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.

至于有关资本的条款，以前的南非法律案件曾辩论过知识产权是否符合资本资格。法院裁定它没有 - 直到立法者后来修改了立法，以明确包括在内。

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.

法官得出的结论是，加密货币目前同样不属于资本的法律定义，并且必须通过立法变更来解决任何纳入资本的愿望。

“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没收相关资金了。

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

该裁决向中央银行发出了明确的信号：如果要涵盖加密货币，则必须更新交换控制法。

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.

同时，预计该判决将触发南非的加密货币活动的增加，直到制定新的立法为止。由于南非对当地加密交易所进行了监管，因此，如果需求激增，这可能会在国内对比特币价格产生短期保费。

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.

具有讽刺意味的是，尽管标准银行赢得了案件，但胜利可能会以付出代价。潜在的急于购买加密货币并将货币移出近海可能会大大侵蚀银行存款，这可能超过了银行设法恢复的1640万兰特。