Abstract: It has been judicially dilemmatic how to treat the suspects who have promptly returned their bribery；in current practice，they have either received“lenient treatment”or are pronounced“not guilty”of criminal charges. While the“not guilty”treatment is legitimately doubtful，it has obvious policy effectiveness and is in favor of the accused. This treatment is in contradiction with the theory of accomplished crime as “prompt refunding” is not categorized as the effective recovery of an accomplished crime or the discontinuation of a crime. Prompt refunding only applies in the circumstance of accepting rather than requiring bribery，thus it is different from proactive surrendering ill-gotten gains. Its essence lies in the lack of intention to take bribery. The legitimacy of“prompt”refunding needs to be resolved through criminal law amendment to define the period of time and the proactive，positive，and effective nature of the action.

Key words: receiving property, prompt refunding, bribery crime, criminal justice, criminal legislation