From my experience in the loss prevention field, this sounds like they had more than just one instance of this occurance before the retailer attempted to prosecute. Typically, if a retailer doesn't have concealment, or more proof of the individual taking the merchandise from the store, they usually won't prosecute from the first instance; however, if said retailer can find a trend of the merchandise going missing and finds more than one instance of selection with specific intent then they will usually use the trend to substitute the concealment. With that being said, they probably aren't telling you everything and you probably aren't being completely honest yourself.

To illustrate the process a bit more, some years back I was working for a large retail giant as a uniformed LP and began to notice where a lot of (coincidentally) portable hard drives were going missing. I would find the spiderwrap and empty packages in the restroom. I went back on video to find the two subjects selecting the merchandise from the shelf and placing them at the bottom of the cart. Occasionally, you would see one individual select, stage the cart, and have the other individual select the cart after and walk to the restroom. Although I was unable to find concealment of the merchandise, I was able to obtain prosecution approval because of the trend that had developed. I used partnerships with local law enforcement and other retailers to identify the individuals. They were picked up by law enforcement some weeks later halfway across the state.

Concealment does not always have to be seen to establish theft. Specific intent is the key to proving dishonesty.