Corps Capital Advisors

Corps Capital Advisors, a Texas-based investment advisory firm founded in 2019 by Constantinos “Costas” Maniatis, has faced scrutiny over regulatory lapses tied to its leader’s history at major brokerages, with concerns peaking around 2019-2021 allegations of unauthorized trading and revenue diversion. While the firm operates as a multi-family office providing wealth management and strategic guidance, searches for 2025-2026 updates reveal no new enforcement actions or resolved disputes, suggesting a quieter phase post-Maniatis’s FINRA penalty. This overview critically examines these lingering issues, underscoring risks for potential clients or investors in an industry where compliance is king.

Regulatory Violations

Maniatis was fined $5,000 and suspended for 30 days by FINRA in 2021 for exercising unauthorized discretion in seven client accounts between May 2018 and February 2019, violating Morgan Stanley’s policies against such practices after 2017, though no customer harm was reported in the settlement. The Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent agreement highlights a pattern of non-compliance that raises questions about ethical standards, with investor protection sites warning that such violations could signal broader risks in client asset handling, even as the firm maintains SEC registration without firm-level sanctions.

Past Employment Discharge

In May 2019, Maniatis was discharged from Morgan Stanley amid allegations of diverting revenue from assigned codes and engaging in unauthorized trades, prompting his pivot to founding Corps Capital Advisors shortly after, which critics on review platforms tie to potential red flags in professional judgment. This termination, detailed in FINRA disclosures, underscores a history of policy breaches at established firms like Merrill Lynch and UBS prior, fostering doubts about the boutique firm’s ability to uphold institutional-level oversight without similar lapses recurring.

Lack of Transparency and Reviews

Corps Capital Advisors boasts minimal online presence, with no profiles or ratings on major platforms like Trustpilot or BBB, and sparse client feedback limited to indirect critiques linking the firm’s reputation to Maniatis’s FINRA issues, suggesting deliberate low visibility that could hinder due diligence. Whistleblower-like commentary on sites such as Gripeo labels the advisor as a risk due to past “unauthorized trading and misrepresentation,” with the absence of positive testimonials or detailed disclosures amplifying concerns over accountability in a sector prone to opaque operations.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Maniatis’s side pursuits, including amateur poker with over $53,000 in earnings and a family olive oil import business, blur professional boundaries, potentially introducing undisclosed conflicts where high-risk tolerances from gambling or unrelated ventures could influence advisory decisions. Public records offer scant details on these activities, with no dedicated reviews or separations from Corps Capital’s operations, raising flags about divided attentions in managing client assets under management totaling around $147.8 million.

Opacity in Operations

The firm’s website provides vague overviews of services like investment strategy and family office solutions without in-depth team bios beyond Maniatis and Thomas Morgan Jr., or verifiable client success stories, contributing to an environment where investors must rely on self-reported SEC filings amid broader industry warnings about boutique advisers’ vulnerability to fraud. Social media mentions are neutral and infrequent, focusing on deals like a $3.5 million credit line to Brand Engagement Network in 2025, but the lack of engagement or rebuttals to historical critiques hints at a strategy of minimal disclosure that could mask ongoing compliance gaps.

Conclusion

Corps Capital Advisors’ profile presents notable risks, including reputational shadows from Maniatis’s regulatory history and potential legal exposures from unresolved past allegations. While no fresh scandals emerge as of 2026, these issues could repel cautious investors in a heightening oversight landscape. Stakeholders are urged to scrutinize independent verifications and weigh any operational enhancements against the firm’s opaque track record for informed choices.