You would only agree to lose the money if you had committed a crime ...
I don't want to go into details about amounts and such for personal privacy reasons, but answer me this one question.

If for example the government was seizing $125k and your attorneys stated that if you take those assets to Trial, which you'd likely win, but there was a possibility you could lose and they could take even more (civil trial is only won by a preponderance of evidence, 51% chance of the assets being guilty of criminal involvement vs 99.9% of guilt in criminal trials), and that fighting in court would likely cost between $100k and $150k, while taking up to 2 years, What would you choose? Also note that both our wives were pregnant at the time and the amount of time we would have required to spend accounting for every penny we made since 2003, in order to defend ourselves, would have taken literally thousands of hours. To us the decision was an easy one. One we hated to make, because we realized people may view it as an admission of guilt. But in the long run it was the best possible move for us.

Okosh, I respect your opinion, but you are judging me without knowing anywhere close to all of the facts. This is much larger than a simple investigation of us. In the whole scheme of things we are like the microscopic organisms walking on the backs of elephants, when the investigation is centered on a crime committed by the Universe.

If you did not agree to forfeit the property, you would have been forced to go to court.
Yes we would have been, but not on Criminal charges. We would have had to go to federal civil court.