Is there a name for judging someone according to their alleged intentions?

I've been looking for the English name for a sophism, where someone – or for that matter, their actions – is judged according to their alleged intents, usually false or unprovable.

I know this fallacy is called a trial of intent or judgment of intent in other languages, but I don't know of any fallacy with that name in English.

Also, this fallacy is not actually a variant on the ad hominem fallacy, as the latter is basically a red herring – it shifts the focus from the argument to the person making the argument. The fallacy I'm describing, meanwhile, is not a red herring since it's usually used when the person being judged, or their action, is already the main focus of the debate.

It isn't a strawman either, since this one is about misreprenting a claim or an opinion expressed by the debater, whilst the sophism I'm describing is merely an allegation about someone's intent.

I shall give an example to illustrate what I'm describing:

People who give to charity are hypocrites. All they want is to portrait themselves as good people and get a tax deduction.

I hope you get a good understanding of what I am describing. Thanks in advance

Basically, if there is a glaring discrepancy between a person's claim and their actions or intent it falls into a

Tu Quque Fallacy ( a variation of ad hominem by focusing on the opponent's hypocritical stance)

See Dr. Bo's:

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

Example #1:

Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.

Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.

I think the best fallacy to describe this would be hasty generalization . Certainly there are SOME people who fit these categories, but the error in reasoning is suggesting that ALL or that this applies to even any one specific person without other evidence.

I don't believe it's a logical fallacy, it's just an unfalsifiable assertion of opinion. Only the subject could know their intention.

I think both answers, Bo's and Bryan's are correct analyzes. The first logic (hasty generalization) and the second epistemological (falsifiability). Of course, if this is to analyze "arguments" of this type:

People who give charity only to portray themselves as good people and get tax deductions.

However, if the analysis refers to such arguments:

Intending to offend believers is immoral.
Atheism intends to offend believers.
Thus atheism is immoral.

It is only a valid syllogism, but not solid, for its premises are highly questionable, not to say false.

Yep, Bryan nailed it. Does not seem a hasty generalization because "hypocrites" is not defined. There is no logical argument presented in this assertion. This overgeneralization rhetorical flourish lacks a definitive postulate available for deductive falsification. That is, "hypocrite" is not defined distinctly from charity w/ or w/o hypocrisy.