Abstract: Cases of using illicit money to reward network anchors have frequently occurred in recent years. A consensus has not yet been reached in the academic circle about whether such rewards can be recovered by judicial organs or obtained in good faith by online platforms and anchors, and the conclusions of judicial decisions vary. There are many types of crimes involved in live-streaming rewarding, mainly involving property crimes; the subjects of crime are limited to natural persons, mostly young men; among the platforms and anchors who are rewarded, pan-entertainment live-streaming accounts for a relatively high proportion. From the legislative evolution of our country’s criminal recovery system, it can be seen that the legislature holds a positive attitude towards the good faith acquisition system in the civil law, but the current judicial organs disagree on whether the illicit money can be recovered when it is used for rewards, mainly due to the legal nature of the rewarding behavior. There are different perceptions. The user’s rewarding behavior is not a free gift contract, nor a gift out of obligation, but a separate service contract relationship with the gift d for rewards, mainly due to the legal nature of the rewardtion system in the civiprovides live streaming, and reward givers get spiritual reward. In the service contract relationship, when the influence of the special attribute of currency on illicit money is not considered, the act of rewarding is a disclaimer in civil law. In the absence of contrary evidence, it should be presumed that the platform and the host have good faith, and the consideration for the normal reward is reasonable. The delivery of illicit money by tipping a gift to an anchor is in line with the rules of good faith acquisition system. Therefore, normal online tipping of illicit money should not generally be recovered in criminal proceedings.