basic purpose, for, as a comparison of a few state and federal “bribery” provisions illustrates, statutes often use different language to forbid different forms of the same type of conduct. See. e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 201 (1982) (influencing public official or witness); 18 U.S.C. § 212 (1982) (gift to bank examiner); 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) (1982) (illegal transaction with labor representative); Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 268, § 13B (1984) (influencing witness); N.Y. Penal Law § 215.00 (McKinney 1975) (similar). Thus, the federal courts have uniformly held that the list of common law crimes includes convictions under statutes that substantially cover the conduct listed in the disqualification statute, regardless of the precise statutory langauge. E.g., Illario v. Frawley, 426 F.Supp. 1132 (D.N.J.1977) (<HOLDING>); Hodgson v. Chain Service Restaurant,
recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey holding conviction under new jersey law for obtaining money by false pretenses to be grand larceny under  504 holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer holding that state of new jersey is not a person under  1983 and thus not amendable to suit under that statute recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller