No, wasn't those either. Didn't have anything to do with him making money, it was him spending money, and the "business records" was just the bookkeeping from the quick books drop down menu after he spent it. The predicate crime that it would have to be "concealing" in order to make it a felony and within the statue of limitations wasn't actually specified. The theories being floated for the "underlying crime" were a campaign finance violation by claiming it should have been considered him donating to his own campaign, but if they had solidly alleged that was it, Trump could have called the former election commission chairman to testify and clarify the law and say it wasn't, so they didn't actually specify the crime so the judge could keep him from testifying. In the end they just told the jury they don't have to agree on what the underlying crime was, and they would accept an aggregate opinion for a unanimous decision.
There are not that many previous times it's been prosecuted as a felony, but the other times have been like a lady claiming she has young kids when she didn't actually have any kids on a food stamp application to get higher payments, a business owner who didn't claim $1 million of his income to avoid taxes, and insurance fraud in a house fire to get paid for items that weren't in fire.
The previous cases have all had clear predicate crimes for financial gain, so pretty easy to show who the victim was and the exact dollar amount the person made from it. Trumps don't really have a victim, or maybe since Hillary Clinton lost to him that would make her the "victim", not really sure because they didn't specify.