Since you originally wrote A Crime to be Rich in 1985, why have you decided to update it to 2008?
David Snowdon: The book was originally written in 1985, but it wasn’t published. Twenty-three years later, I decided to rewrite and modernize the story to match the present time. But the central plot remained the same. Over the years, it was a book that I had always wanted to publish, but it couldn’t be published in its original format in 2008, as times have changed.

Do you see similarities between the mid-Eighties and now in terms of the way people acted with regards to wealth and more specifically with high finance and banking?
David Snowdon: The similarities are obvious. And I think it’s still the same. People were proud to be rich in those days and they still are today. High profile bankers made a fortune and the situation remains the same. However, public opinion on investment banking has changed due to the global financial crisis.

What have you changed in this version of the book?
David Snowdon: Some of the characters were changed. Some of the settings were changed. And certain changes were to do with the latest technological developments. In those days, things like the Internet and digital technologies were not readily available. But today they are. In addition to that, a few new ideas were incorporated into the latest version.

Shane Turnbull doesn’t seem to be a totally detestable character, despite his crime. Where would you position him on the moral scale?
David Snowdon: Shane Turnbull was a decent guy, who was happily married and made a decent living. But he also made some grave mistakes, and it was the way he handled his mistakes that subsequently made him the bad guy. I would like to believe that Shane is a likeable character, who most people can relate to. But that remains to be seen.

And what about DI Eubanks? Despite being an upholder of the law, he seems to be a nasty specimen. Where would you place him on the moral scale?
David Snowdon: In Eubanks, you have the ultimate, archetypal character. He’s a diehard, incorruptible, old-fashioned British Police Officer, who doesn’t suffer fools and who is determined to bring the guilty to justice. Not everyone will like him, as he’s so determined and tenaciously set in his ways. But Eubanks is one of those guys who doesn’t care. All he wants to do is to put away the bad guys. And he’ll stick at nothing to send a culprit to jail. Once he sets his sights on you, that’s it. He’s like a rottweiler that sinks its teeth into a victim and never lets him go. And that’s why they call him the rottweiler.

What have others who have read the book said to you about this morality issue? And what do you think? Is there any absolute right and wrong in this story?
David Snowdon: There are quite a few pending reviews, so we’ll have to wait and see.
There is an absolute right and wrong in this story, but it’s up to the readers to form their own opinions.