Abstract: The crux of the problem of improper determination of the practice of confiscation of illegally obtained property for environmental pollution crimes in China is the indifference of criminal justice to the protection of legal property rights, the pragmatic inertia of substituting punishment for forfeiture, and the uncertainty of the legal nature of the confiscation of illegally obtained property. The measure of confiscation of illegally obtained property is a the measure of balancing undue interests, and the rationalization of confiscation of illegally obtained property should be properly realized under the clear normative purpose of depriving undue interests. The consideration directly obtained by the perpetrator through unlawful environmental pollution acts constitutes illegally obtained property. A serious problem in practice is the determination of sales-type proceeds of crime, which should be established from sales-based to cost-savings-based rules, denying the practice of taking sales revenue or profit as the proceeds of crime, and screening the illegal disposal behavior and the negative income generated from it, which should be paid for, but the cost saved through the illegal behavior is the proceeds of crime. In the absence of long-term investment in environmental protection facilities, the illegal proceeds to be deprived of are mainly depreciation expenses that should be amortized year by year. The perpetrator shall not bear the financing costs saved during the period of the act, but shall bear the necessary costs incurred in the use and maintenance of environmental protection facilities. For environmental crimes committed without a permit or in violation of the prohibition of disposition to commit the type of environmental damage, if it is unlawful due to the mere filing or application procedure not being satisfied, the rules of determination from the review of the violation to the review of the basis of the violation shall be established. Negative or positive income generated by the perpetrator’s formally unlawful but substantively lawful conduct is not considered to be proceeds of crime, since the substance does not infringe on any tangible interests and is merely a violation of the formal requirements of administrative authorization, it may be sufficiently legitimized by causing the perpetrator to supplement the materials for obtaining administrative authorization.