"... As far as banks are concerned, the Fraud Act 2006 must now be read with the bank antimony laundering obligations and banks will focus primarily on the source of the customers' deposits" - Mike Rainford writing in the FSB's Business Network magazine, Apr/May 07
This gem is taken from a generally incoherent and rambling article. Antimony (element 51 in the Periodic Table) is not, to my knowledge, that often washed, despite what the author says. Yet another example of when reliance on a spellchecker is no substitute for proofing and/or common sense. He might get away with it - as long as anyone doesn't bother to read too carefully. But they will, since you have to pore over the sentence and its companions before you conclude that the author probably doesn't know what he's on about either!
Obviously a surprisingly common mistake, although Google suspects it might not be what was intended.
Here's another paddle through the backwaters of reason from the same piece:
"With the rapid development of information technology and the prevalence of the personal computer has impacted on fraud, hence the new offence." Er, yes - what?
24/04/07 @ 09:44