Align bank legal-name validation with Settings - #106807

Explanation of Change

Align bank, wallet, beneficial-owner and signer legal-name character validation with the existing Settings legal-name rule, following the requested revision.

• Replace every use of isValidLegalName with isValidDisplayName, without adding a configurable check.
• Show the existing comma-or-semicolon error for prohibited separators. Preserve existing required-field, length and reserved-word checks.
• Remove the obsolete validator and its Latin-only regex, and replace its tests with coverage for hyphens, apostrophes, non-Latin names, prohibited separators and required-field validation.

This fixes client-side character rejection; successful bank ownership verification is not claimed from automated browser testing.

Fixed Issues

$ #106743
PROPOSAL: #106743 (comment)

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your change worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out offline verification before marking this PR as ready for review.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas need regression testing.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
  • I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
  • I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
  • I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
  • I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

AI Tests

• Passed full Jest suite: npm test -- --silent --maxWorkers=4 — 2,372 suites passed, 1 skipped; 39,484 tests passed, 146 skipped; 160 snapshots passed. An earlier two-worker run timed out; the four-worker run completed successfully.
• Passed targeted validation suite: 220 tests.
• Passed npm run lint, npm run lint-changed, npm run typecheck, npm run spell-changed, npm run storybook -- --smoke-test --ci, and git diff --check.
• Passed direct React Compiler checks for all three changed React components. The check-changed wrapper could not determine its base branch in this invocation, so the direct checks were used; changed-vs-base compiler comparison remains unverified.
• The prescribed prettier npm script does not exist in this checkout. The repository's pre-commit oxfmt hook passed on all six changed files.
• Staged code review returned no violations.
• Browser verification was blocked by an emailed security-code gate before legal-name entry. Neither the shared name form nor signer-name flows were verified interactively. No real bank was linked and no sensitive verification was submitted.

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-alignLegalNameValidation
git checkout -b claude-alignLegalNameValidation upstream/claude-alignLegalNameValidation
git push -u origin claude-alignLegalNameValidation

Screenshots/Videos