What kind of fallacy is calling a conman a philanthropist?

Media headlines announce that Mr. X has made another mega-donation - $50 million - to public education, at the same time calling him, not surprisingly, a "philanthropist." However, no one really knows exactly who the money is turned over to or how it is used.

The media don't mention the fact that the schools use a product sold by Mr. X's company. Another fact that's seldom mentioned: public education continues to decline, even in Mr. X's home town.

More astute observers know that Mr. X is a very corrupt conman. His "philanthropy" is just a stunt that helps him whitewash his image, gain more control over public education and sell more products, all in one fell swoop.

What kind of fallacy is this, where evil people "donate" a tiny percentage of the money they steal or exploit from people, often investing it in their own business enterprises, then label themselves "philanthropists"?

I wouldn't call this a fallacy. The larger picture here is what is known in psychology as the halo effect . This is when someone does something universally recognized as good, and all the bad they do is overshadowed by the good or even reinterpreted with some positive spin. We often forgive our heroes their misdeeds to maintain the illusion of the hero.

A few other comments:

• Be careful labeling one's good deeds "stunts" or assuming you understand the true intent of the individual. It might be the case, but only the individual knows his or her true intent (unless that person made it very clear as in "I'm just donating because I don't want to look like a greedy ass!").
  One can be a conman AND a philanthropist—the two are not mutually exclusive. Very often our good deeds yield a direct benefit to ourselves.
  Think about what do you really mean by "a tiny percentage"? In our culture, 10% is quite generous.
  If Mr. X gives $$ to cause Y, is it his fault that cause Y is still a problem? How much worse might the problem be with out the money?