This one kind of threw me, too. The reasoning is obviously incorrect, but I struggled to find a proper name for it. In my opinion, bracabaoma and moneyman both got a piece of it, but moneyman was closest.
My opinion: This is a case of affirming the consequent, based on the false premise that whatever applies to me applies to you as well (sort of a mi quoque). Your characteristics are my characteristics. I am a liar. Therefore, you are a liar.
I keep the score, so money gets .75 points, brac gets .25.
Adams' identification: "Generalizing from Self"
He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.