Inside Namibia’s N$163 Million Crypto Scandal
It is one of the biggest cryptocurrency-related criminal cases Namibia has seen.
At the centre of it are businessman Coenraad “Coenie” Botha, his wife Charlotte Murove, and an operation known as CBI Exchange Namibia.
Prosecutors allege that investors placed approximately N$163 million into an investment operation that was presented as a legitimate cryptocurrency business.
The case has since produced 64 criminal charges, arrests at Namibia's border with Botswana, a legal battle over seized computers and cryptocurrency devices, frozen bank accounts, parallel regulatory action in South Africa and years of court proceedings.
But there is an important qualification from the outset.
Botha and Murove have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. The allegations described in this article remain allegations unless and until they are proven in court.
What Was CBI Exchange Namibia?
CBI Exchange Namibia presented itself as a cryptocurrency operation through which customers could participate in the buying and selling of digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ether.
The company's director, Coenraad Botha, described the business during court proceedings as a cryptocurrency exchange.
CBI Exchange Namibia was also connected to names that had previously been associated with Botha's cryptocurrency activities, including Uhuru Tribe and Uhuru Cash.
Botha also operated a related business in South Africa known as CBI X SA.
According to testimony Botha gave during his bail proceedings, CBI Exchange Namibia was started in 2021 after the South African operation had been closed down.
What followed was a rapid flow of money through the Namibian company's bank account.
More Than N$162.8 Million Entered the Account
The scale of the operation became clearer when the Bank of Namibia investigated CBI Exchange Namibia's banking activity.
According to information later recorded in a High Court judgment, deposits totalling more than N$162.8 million were made into CBI Exchange Namibia's bank account between August 2021 and February 2022.
During approximately the same period, debits, payments and withdrawals from the account totalled about N$153.6 million.
The Bank of Namibia's investigation also identified transfers involving Botha's personal account and accounts connected to CBI entities.
Those transactions became central to the dispute between the company and Namibia's central bank.
It is important to understand what the widely reported N$163 million figure means.
It is the approximate amount the State alleges was received through the investment operation. That does not necessarily mean that every dollar of the N$163 million disappeared or that N$163 million represents the final proven loss suffered by investors.
That distinction will ultimately depend on the evidence presented in the criminal proceedings.
The Bank of Namibia Stepped In
The Bank of Namibia began investigating whether CBI Exchange Namibia was effectively conducting banking business without the necessary authorisation.
The central issue was straightforward: a company cannot simply receive deposits from the public as though it were a bank without complying with Namibia's banking laws.
CBI Exchange maintained that it was selling cryptocurrency and was not taking deposits in the conventional banking sense.
The Bank of Namibia disagreed.
In March 2022, the central bank instructed Bank Windhoek to freeze CBI Exchange Namibia's bank account.
The company challenged that action in court.
But in March 2025, High Court judge Esi Schimming-Chase dismissed CBI Exchange Namibia's attempt to have the freeze reviewed and set aside.
The court found that the Bank of Namibia had sufficient information to reasonably believe that CBI Exchange Namibia was not complying with the Banking Institutions Act when the central bank acted against the account.
This was an important legal victory for the regulator, although it was separate from the criminal trial against Botha and Murove.
The Bank of Namibia Referred the Matter to Police
By March 2024, the Bank of Namibia had formally announced the result of another investigation into the activities of CBI Exchange Namibia and Botha.
The central bank said neither CBI Exchange Namibia nor Botha had been authorised to conduct banking business or to receive deposits from members of the public.
The Bank consequently referred the matter to the Namibian Police for further investigation.
That is when the case moved dramatically from financial regulation into criminal proceedings.
The Border Arrest
On 11 March 2024, Botha and Murove were arrested at the Buitepos border post between Namibia and Botswana.
The arrest is sometimes remembered as having taken place at an airport, but the couple were actually detained at the land border while travelling.
Police said they had received intelligence suggesting that the couple might be attempting to leave Namibia.
The defence disputed the suggestion that they were fleeing the country. Botha maintained that they intended to travel to South Africa.
The arrest itself soon became another court battle.
Then a Court Ruled the Arrest Unlawful
Botha and Murove challenged the legality of their arrest.
A Windhoek magistrate agreed with them.
The court found that the police did not have the required arrest warrants for the offences on which the couple had initially been detained.
Their arrest was declared unlawful, the matter was struck from the court roll and the magistrate ordered their release.
That ruling did not, however, amount to an acquittal on the underlying allegations.
Botha and Murove were rearrested shortly afterwards as the criminal case continued.
This distinction is important: the court found a problem with the way the initial arrest had been carried out. It did not rule that the alleged investment activity was lawful or that the criminal allegations were false.
The 64 Charges
Botha and Murove eventually faced a substantial charge sheet consisting of 64 criminal charges.
They include:
- 1 count of fraud involving approximately N$163 million;
- 31 counts of conducting banking business without authorisation;
- 31 counts of money laundering; and
- 1 count of conducting a Ponzi scheme.
The State alleges that investors were led to believe between 2018 and 2022 that they were dealing with a legitimate operation authorised to receive investments from the public.
Prosecutors allege that investors were told their money would generate returns, despite the operation not being authorised to accept deposits or investments from members of the public in the manner alleged.
Botha and Murove have denied guilt.
They formally pleaded not guilty to all 64 charges during a court appearance in January 2025.
Were Investors Being Promised Huge Returns?
The story becomes more complicated because Botha's cryptocurrency activities were not limited to Namibia.
South Africa's Financial Sector Conduct Authority, or FSCA, investigated Botha and entities including CBI X SA and CBI Association.
The South African regulator alleged that investments had been solicited from the public with promised returns of approximately 1% to 4% per week.
Those numbers immediately illustrate why regulators become concerned about extremely high guaranteed or apparently predictable investment returns.
A return of several percent every week, compounded over a long period, is extraordinarily difficult for a legitimate investment strategy to sustain.
The FSCA said its investigation found no legitimate financial product or investment activity generating the purported returns paid to investors through the CBI entities.
However, another legal distinction is necessary here.
The FSCA initially imposed an administrative penalty of more than R216 million on Botha and issued a 10-year debarment in March 2024.
Those decisions were later set aside by agreement in October 2024 and the matter was referred back to the FSCA for further consideration.
It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the R216 million penalty as a currently enforceable final fine against Botha.
The Seized Computers and Crypto Devices Became Another Battle
When police arrested the couple in 2024, investigators seized electronic devices and financial material.
The seized property reportedly included computers, electronic storage devices, financial records and cryptocurrency-related hardware.
Botha and other applicants went to the High Court to challenge the warrantless search and seizure and sought protection against police accessing information stored on the devices.
That dispute had a significant effect on the criminal investigation.
By October 2025, the Windhoek Magistrate's Court was told that a High Court interdict was preventing police and the prosecutor general from accessing electronic devices seized from Botha and Murove.
The criminal case consequently faced further delays while the separate High Court proceedings continued.
The High Court Ruled Against Botha in August 2026
A major development arrived on 5 August 2026.
High Court judge Thomas Masuku dismissed an application by Botha, CBI Exchange Namibia and other applicants challenging the search and seizure.
The court found that police were legally competent to investigate the alleged offences and that the seized electronic and financial material could reasonably contain evidence relevant to the investigation.
A key issue concerned whether consent had been given for the search.
Botha disputed having consented, while police officers stated under oath that consent had been obtained after the search was explained.
Because the case was being decided through affidavit evidence and there was a factual dispute between the versions, the High Court accepted the police version for purposes of deciding the application.
The temporary order restricting access to the seized material was discharged and the application was dismissed.
Importantly, the judge also made clear that the ruling did not give police unlimited access to privileged or private information merely because a device had been seized.
What About the Alleged N$29 Million Transfer?
Another unresolved aspect of the investigation emerged during court proceedings in 2025.
Prosecutors informed the Windhoek Magistrate's Court that they were waiting for information from South Africa concerning approximately N$29 million allegedly transferred out of Namibia.
That information was part of the reason the State requested additional time before making final decisions about the prosecution.
As with the broader criminal allegations, the existence, purpose and legal significance of those alleged transfers must ultimately be established through evidence.
Why Cryptocurrency Features So Prominently
The CBI case illustrates an important distinction that is often lost when cryptocurrency scandals make headlines.
Cryptocurrency itself is not necessarily the alleged crime.
Bitcoin and other digital assets can be legitimately bought, sold and held.
The regulatory problem arises when a business uses cryptocurrency as part of an arrangement that may fall under banking, investment, securities, payment or anti-money-laundering laws without complying with the applicable rules.
Putting the word “crypto” in front of an investment operation does not remove ordinary financial laws.
If a business takes money from members of the public, promises returns and manages those funds on their behalf, regulators will look at what the business is actually doing rather than simply what it calls itself.
The Warning Signs Investors Should Understand
Whatever the eventual outcome of the CBI criminal case, it highlights several warning signs that investors should consider before handing money to any investment operation.
1. Extremely High or Consistent Returns
Promises of unusually high weekly or monthly returns should immediately lead to questions about how those returns are being generated.
Legitimate investments involve risk. Returns normally fluctuate.
The higher and more predictable the promised return appears, the more carefully the underlying business model should be examined.
2. Confusing Cryptocurrency With Regulation
A company dealing in Bitcoin is not automatically a legitimate investment provider simply because cryptocurrency itself is real.
Investors should establish which entity holds their money, where the company is registered, who regulates it and what licences or authorisations it holds.
3. Difficulty Explaining Where Returns Come From
An investment business should be able to explain how it earns money.
“Crypto trading”, “AI trading”, “arbitrage”, “blockchain technology” and similar terminology are not substitutes for a clear business model.
If the explanation of how profits are generated is impossible to verify, that should be treated cautiously.
4. Relying on Other Investors' Success Stories
Early investors receiving payouts does not, by itself, prove that an investment operation is sustainable.
In a Ponzi scheme, earlier participants can receive genuine payments. The problem is that those payments may come from money contributed by newer investors rather than from profitable underlying investment activity.
That is why bank records, licences and independently verifiable investment activity matter more than testimonials.
Where Does the Case Stand Now?
As of August 2026, the CBI Exchange matter remains significant because several separate legal questions have already been decided while the central criminal allegations remain contested.
The Bank of Namibia successfully defended its decision to freeze CBI Exchange Namibia's bank account.
The High Court has now also dismissed the challenge concerning the police search and seizure of relevant property.
But neither of those rulings should be confused with a criminal conviction for fraud, money laundering or operating a Ponzi scheme.
Botha and Murove have pleaded not guilty.
The State still bears the burden of proving the criminal charges against them in accordance with Namibian law.
More Than Just a Crypto Story
It is easy to look at the CBI Exchange case and see another cautionary tale about cryptocurrency.
But the bigger story is about financial regulation.
Technology changes quickly. The basic questions investors need to ask do not.
Who is receiving your money?
Are they authorised to receive it?
Where is the money actually going?
What activity generates the promised return?
Can those claims be independently verified?
And if the operation collapses tomorrow, what legal protection do you have?
The CBI Exchange case involves cryptocurrency, millions of dollars, multiple jurisdictions and years of litigation.
But at its core, the question being put before Namibia's courts is much older than Bitcoin:
What happened to investors' money, what were they told when they handed it over, and did the people receiving it have the legal authority to do what they were doing?
That is the question the criminal process will ultimately have to answer.
This article discusses an ongoing criminal matter. Coenraad Botha and Charlotte Murove have pleaded not guilty, and allegations against them should not be treated as proven unless established by a court.
POPULAR ARTICLES
View all
