He did buy those books, though -- correct? Were those not real sales of real books that were paid for with real money? There's no implication that he crossed

He did buy those books, though -- correct? Were those not real sales of real books that were paid for with real money? There's no implication that he crossed out a number on a report before artificially enhancing it by increasing it by 400, is there? I feel that both of these examples are reprehensible in this context, but that only one of them rises to the level of fraud. (I mean: There are companies performing stock buybacks all the time for various reasons, and some of those reasons can include improving the market's perception of that stock's value.)