I'm not a lawyer, but I've known people go through the (similar, in the UK), mill of prosecution and read/watched enough about some cases to get a sense of how it might play out behind the scenes.
Let's step back, and see if you still think this is "give up your right! Or else!"
The prosecutors are 50/50 on getting a conviction. If they win, they're sure they're going to see the defendant go to prison for, say, 10 years. If they lose, the defendant walks, and thanks to the fifth amendment (almost everywhere in the World has double jeopardy protection), unless substantial new evidence emerges, they'll never get to prosecute this individual again. They're pretty sure they have everything they'll ever find, so this is it.
The defendant and his legal team are 50/50 on getting an acquittal. If they win, it's over. If they don't, it's 10 years in prison which is pretty awful.
The trial is going to be expensive for both sides. The prosecution will work to get the odds in their favour, the defendant's legal team will be trying to figure out how to get it in their favour, and so on.
This process is expensive, and eventually the taxpayer is going to pay. Even if the proceeds from the crime have been recovered and sold, the money going into public funds is going to come right back out again to prosecute, and if the defendant has nothing and can't afford their own legal bills, the taxpayer is paying both sides.
Everybody - and I mean everybody - knows the defendant did what he did.
There are interviews that are barely credible, paper trails of assets moving, lots of evidence of obfuscation and trying to cover tracks, but there's confusion in the story about intent to commit a crime.
The judge might decide to throw it out on statute of limitations, a jury might look at the psych reports and think the kid seems nice and naive and not the criminal type, so let's believe his story.
It's a bit of a mess.
Neither side really fancies were this going because there is concern you're setting off a train of case law, too - as a prosecutor do you really want to test statute of limitations if the person wasn't "fleeing from justice", but just enjoying some money he came into? That defence lawyer really looks like he fancies his day in the Supreme Court...
Meanwhile, the clock - and publicly funded meter - is ticking.
Prosecutor approaches defence. "Plead guilty, we wrap this up, your guy gets 5 years instead of 10. Parole eligible at 3 years".
Defence retorts "2 years, suspended".
Prosecutor comes back "2 years, no suspension, no parole, but time served taken into account".
"Deal". The judge gets a call. He decides to make sure there is no risk of an appeal to make clear to the defendant in court that there are questions about statute of limitations that he would need to waive. Defendant agrees to waive his rights. They move to sentencing, the prosecutor asks for 24 months, the World moves on.
Everyone wins, even though the defendant goes to prison for a while. He's got 20% of the likely maximum penalty on an even money shot, which any gambler will tell you is superb "value".
The prosecutor has lost out in terms of seeing time served, but has got a conviction and saved the taxpayer many, many dollars.
The defendant didn't lose their rights. They looked at a 50/50 shot and decided they'd prefer 2 years guaranteed and get on with their life rather than take a 50% chance of 10 years.