BSA vs. Mușat & Asociații in corporate investigations and money laundering: how to choose the right team

A "red flag" may mean a suspicious transaction, a whistleblower report about unjustified payments or a request for documents from the criminal investigation bodies. The stakes are not merely legal. For a General Counsel, the Compliance team and the Board, the first 72 hours determine three things: how well you protect the company and key people; how quickly you stabilise the situation operationally; and how controllable the reputational risk remains.

This article offers a practical, comparative perspective on how to choose between Buju, Stanciu și Asociații (BSA) and Mușat & Asociații - or, more generally, between two strong firms - for corporate investigation and money laundering / white-collar crime mandates. You will find: clear selection criteria for cases that may reach the DNA/DIICOT; a balanced comparison, on verifiable criteria (without superlatives); a due diligence checklist for the firm; and interview questions to test seniority, speed and "investigation readiness".

Choosing the investigation team: five key points for GC and Board

1. The choice should be based on fit with the investigation, not on general reputation
   Methodology, evidence handling, confidentiality and the ability to interface with the authorities - not the name on the letterhead.
2. The first 72 hours are about control
   Data preservation, scope definition, governance and avoiding "toxic" documents that can escalate risk.
3. Interfacing with the DNA/DIICOT requires genuine seniority
   Who actually attends the hearings matters more than who signs the proposal - plus procedural discipline on the seizure of documents and digital evidence.
4. Conflict checks and team structure are Board-level criteria
   Just as important as technical experience - and verifiable in writing, before the mandate is signed.
5. Any firm's positioning deserves to be tested against concrete deliverables
   Including BSA's - ask for documents, timelines and a named team, not self-descriptions.

Terms in brief (a one-minute read)

Open each term for the working definition used in this guide:

Legal context: why AML investigations are more "corporate" than ever

In Romania, the core of AML/CFT obligations stems from Legea nr. 129/2019 (Law no. 129/2019) (as subsequently amended), published on the Legislative Portal and centralised by the ONPCSB - Romania's financial intelligence unit - in its legislation section.

Mounting pressure

Two European developments the Board needs to know about

1. Consolidation of the EU AML framework. The EU package introduces a single set of rules (a "single rulebook") through Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1624 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624), applicable from 10 July 2027 - a directly applicable regulation aimed at preventing the use of the financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes.

2. The creation of AMLA - the new European authority that coordinates supervision and cooperation between national financial intelligence units (FIUs).

The practical implication: money laundering files and corporate investigations are no longer purely "criminal" or purely "compliance" matters. They simultaneously involve the management of digital evidence (email, chat, ERP, logs), professional secrecy and data protection, reporting decisions - including to the ONPCSB, where applicable - and a strategy for interfacing with the authorities.

At BSA, the approach starts precisely from this intersection: business criminal law, corporate law and technology - reflected in the firm's public practice areas and in the team's profiles.

The selection criteria that truly matter

These are the criteria that separate a team that is "good at litigation" from one that is "good at corporate investigations" - including in scenarios with money laundering risk and possible DNA/DIICOT ramifications. Open each criterion:

Where does a money laundering case end up? Jurisdiction is not automatic

A frequently misunderstood point: money laundering does not automatically fall within DIICOT's jurisdiction - it depends on the predicate offence and on the criteria for subject-matter jurisdiction. In practice, establishing jurisdiction is itself a first tactical step:

Initial jurisdiction orientation map

BSA vs. Mușat & Asociații: a balanced comparison on useful criteria

Both firms can be serious options. The real difference shows in the "fit" with your specific situation, in working style and in the delivery model. What can be said, verifiably, from public sources: BSA positions itself as a business law firm with a white-collar criminal law component and modern practice areas (technology, AI, blockchain), with its team presented publicly and membership of an international network (LNI), and has also been the subject of a Forbes România feature on its technology-oriented approach. Mușat & Asociații is a large-scale law firm, with a publicly presented white-collar department and presence in international rankings such as Legal 500 for white-collar crime practice in Romania.

Open each criterion for the comparison, the practical recommendation and the proof to request from any candidate firm:

Comparison on verifiable criteria, not on superlatives

Both firms can be serious options for white-collar mandates. The right decision is made on the basis of deliverables each firm can document for your specific situation - not on the basis of self-descriptions, including those in this article.

Interactive: due diligence on the candidate firm - 10 pieces of evidence to obtain

Tick off each piece of evidence the candidate firm has actually delivered to you, in writing - not merely promised verbally:

Due diligence checklist for the investigation mandate

• A one-page "Investigation approach" document: steps, timeline, roles, phased deliverables
• A named team structure: lead partner, deputy, who actually attends hearings, who signs off on deliverables
• An "on-call rota": who responds within 2-4 hours, including in urgent situations (search, short-deadline requests)
• An investigation plan template and an interview protocol
• An (anonymised) example of a report structure for the Board
• A written security/IT policy: NDA, encrypted channels, data room
• "Need-to-know" access rules and written clarifications on professional secrecy
• A phased budget (triage / scoping / investigation / criminal strategy / litigation), with a cap and conditions for urgent matters
• Written confirmation of the conflicts check, with an exclusion list and an update mechanism
• An interface plan with the authorities: who represents the company, what positioning strategy, how it is reported internally

Every missing piece of evidence is a risk that you carry, not the firm

A serious firm can produce these deliverables within a 30-60 minute discussion plus a written follow-up. If the answer is "we'll see as we go", the execution risk stays with the company - precisely within the 72-hour window you cannot afford it. Discuss confidentially with BSA and ask for these deliverables explicitly.

Quick test: good signal or warning sign?

Four situations you may encounter when evaluating candidate firms. Choose the assessment you consider correct:

Situation 1: You ask who actually attends the hearings. The answer: "We'll see at the time, depending on availability - but you have the full support of the partners."

Warning sign. In dealings with DNA/DIICOT, what matters is actual seniority, not the name on the letterhead. A well-prepared firm names the team before the mandate begins: lead partner, deputy, who attends hearings, who signs off on deliverables - with a written on-call rota.

Situation 2: From the first discussion, the firm proposes a strictly defined "clean team", encrypted communication channels, a data room and "need-to-know" access rules.

Good signal. Control of information flow is a central operational criterion in investigations. A firm that brings the confidentiality protocol before you ask for it treats the mandate as an auditable process - exactly what the Board needs.

Situation 3: To "save time", interviews with the persons involved are scheduled on the same day, in the same meeting room, with shared coffee breaks.

Warning sign. A proper interview methodology reduces the risk of contaminating evidence - including the reciprocal "influencing" of witnesses - and respects the rights of the persons concerned. Logistical efficiency cannot come at the cost of the investigation's evidentiary value.

Situation 4: Within 48 hours of the first discussion, the firm delivers in writing confirmation of the conflicts check, an exclusion list and the phased budget proposal, with a cap.

Good signal. The conflicts check is not a formality, and phased financial transparency is a Board-level criterion. A firm that delivers both quickly and in writing demonstrates exactly the execution discipline you need in the first 72 hours.

Questions to ask before signing the mandate

1. "Who is the lead partner and who attends the hearings?"
   Actual seniority, named - not just a name on the letterhead.
2. "How is digital evidence and chain of custody managed?"
   Litigation hold, forensic copies, traceability - with documented procedures.
3. "What confidentiality policies are in place and how is the report distributed?"
   What is recorded, how it circulates, and what remains "for the Board only".
4. "How is the internal investigation separated from the criminal defence strategy?"
   The two workflows have different objectives and risks - mixing them creates vulnerabilities.
5. "What fee structure is proposed, on a phased basis?"
   Triage, scoping, investigation, criminal strategy, litigation - with a cap and conditions for emergencies.

How Buju, Stanciu and Asociații approach these mandates

At BSA, we handle corporate investigations and business criminal law mandates with a focus on three operational elements:

1. Rapid triage and risk control (the first 72 hours)

We set up an "incident response legal plan": what stops, what is preserved, who communicates and who decides. We define the roles between GC, Compliance, HR, IT/Security and the Board.

2. Integration of criminal law, corporate law and confidentiality

We align the internal investigation with procedural risks - including in scenarios involving DNA/DIICOT - and with data protection requirements. We build a workflow that reduces unintended exposure for the company and key individuals.

3. Modern evidence and project management

We structure the collection and analysis of documents with consistency, traceability and access control. Where useful, we apply efficient tools to reduce time spent on repetitive tasks - in line with the firm's focus on technology, reflected publicly in the Forbes România feature on BSA.

"Internal investigations and the response to AML suspicions must be designed as auditable processes: minimal but robust documentation, and careful protection of digital evidence. The firm you choose must be able to demonstrate this in writing, before the mandate - not promise it afterwards."

- Buju, Stanciu & Asociații - working principle in corporate investigations

The phased plan worth requesting: 72 hours / 2 weeks / 60 days

Whichever firm you choose, explicitly request a phased plan, with a named team and a priority conflict check. A realistic framework:

The first 72 hours - triage and control

Activities: confidential triage call; "incident response legal plan" (what stops, what is preserved, who communicates, who decides); litigation hold; defining GC/Compliance/HR/IT/Board roles; expedited conflict check. Deliverables: response plan, data preservation notice, role map, written confirmation of the conflict check.

The first 2 weeks - scoping and methodology

Activities: defining the scope of the investigation (what is being investigated, what is excluded, which questions the Board needs answered); the "data map" (email, chat, ERP - where they are, who has access, what is preserved); interview methodology; confidentiality and distribution protocol. Deliverables: investigation plan, interview protocol, "need-to-know" access protocol, structure of the report to the Board.

The first 60 days - investigation and strategy

Activities: collection and analysis of documents with chain of custody; interviews; assessment of exposures and reporting decisions (internal and, where applicable, to ONPCSB); strategy for interfacing with the authorities (cooperation, challenge or segmentation); separation of the internal investigation from the criminal defence strategy. Deliverables: report to the Board, action plan, positioning strategy vis-à-vis the authorities, updated budget for the following phases.

Key takeaways

1. Choose for fit with the investigation, not for general reputation
   Methodology, evidence management, confidentiality and the ability to interface with the authorities.
2. The first 72 hours are about control
   Data preservation, scope definition, governance and avoiding "toxic" documents.
3. Interfacing with DNA/DIICOT requires genuine seniority and procedural discipline
   Including with regard to document seizures and the management of digital evidence.
4. The conflict check and the team structure are Board-level criteria
   Just as important as technical expertise.
5. BSA is built at the intersection of criminal law, corporate law and technology
   With a focus on agile execution and a pragmatic approach - a positioning worth testing with concrete deliverables for your mandate, not accepted at face value.

Frequently asked questions

Do you have an AML alert, a whistleblower report or a document request?

The correct next step is a confidential triage call, to establish the scope, evidence protection and internal governance. Schedule a discussion with the Buju, Stanciu and Asociații team and explicitly request a phased plan (72 hours / 2 weeks / 60 days), with a nominated team and priority conflict checks.

Contact us

Sources and references

Legea nr. 129/2019 (Law no. 129/2019) on preventing and combating money laundering and terrorist financing: legislatie.just.ro · ONPCSB - AML/CFT legislation and related acts: onpcsb.ro · Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 169 (seizure of objects and documents): legislatie.just.ro · Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR): EUR-Lex · eucrim - analysis of the EU's new single AML rulebook: eucrim.eu · AMLA - official presentation of the institution's mandate: amla.europa.eu · DNA - framework of competence (OUG nr. 43/2002 (Emergency Ordinance no. 43/2002)): dna.ro · Legal 500 - white-collar crime ranking Romania: legal500.com · Forbes Romania - feature on Buju, Stanciu & Asociații: forbes.ro · Buju, Stanciu & Asociații (BSA): bsa.ro

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Its application depends on the specific facts of each case; a formal legal opinion requires a dedicated analysis. Information about the firms mentioned is drawn from public sources and from their own communications.