Does the following argument involve a fallacy?

The specific fallacy committed is fallacy of (the) undistributed middle.

Put it on a Venn Diagram, and you can see the fallacy. Not to mention unsubstantiated premises. 

This is worded awkwardly. I am guessing the argument is meant to be:

P1. Some politicians are criminals
P2. Some criminals are drug-dealers
C. Therefore, some politicians are drug dealers.

The conclusion does not follow because we don't know if the politicians that are criminals are also drug dealers. I can't find a specific fallacy for this form, but at the least it is a non sequitur .

The intersection of the sets "criminals who are politicians" and "criminals who are drug dealers" could be an empty set. It cannot be assumed some politicians are drug dealers from the information given. Kath